Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Uniform Business Rate

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the future of the uniform business rate. [20934]

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I have recently received a report entitled "Improving the Rating System", which was sponsored by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

Mr. Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the burden of business rates bears particularly heavily on small firms and that that is a major factor in the closure of a number of small shops in Maldon high street in my constituency? Is he aware that the Prime Minister's recent commitment to listen to the concerns of small firms about the impact of business rates is especially welcome? I urge him to give that the highest priority.

Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will note that we have blazed a trail in the rural White Paper by suggesting that the single shop in the small village should have special consideration in that area. We are considering that matter urgently. I point to the fact that the report from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors suggests that we should continue to have a national non-domestic rate. My hon. Friend will remember the old system, whereby local authorities—particularly Labour-controlled local authorities—placed large burdens on businesses. Those businesses are now protected by this system.

Mr. Barnes: Why has the burden of the standard spending assessment moved away from the revenue support grant to the national business rate and to council tax, causing difficulties for many people? Could the district of north-east Derbyshire have a standard spending assessment arrangement similar to that of Westminster so that everyone could have a return of £700, and presumably businesses could benefit also?

Mr. Gummer: The system is precisely the same as that which applies in Tower Hamlets, Hackney or Westminster. It is an arm's-length procedure that provides

an SSA which is responsive to the needs of the area, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. The Labour party has also suggested that a higher proportion of the weight of local spending should fall upon the resources of the local authority.

Pollution

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the ability of the United Kingdom to meet its Rio commitments with special reference to emissions from vehicles and power stations. [20937]

The Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): The United Kingdom is on course to meet its Rio commitment to return greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels by 2000. The United Kingdom is on course to succeed in reducing projected carbon dioxide emissions by 4 to 8 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2000.

Mr. Robathan: I welcome that positive response and the progress that the Government have made in that regard. I trust that the Government will bear in mind last year's report by the royal commission on environmental pollution and take account of the issues that it raised.
Does my hon. Friend remember his visit to the village of Enderby in my constituency? It is situated very close to the M1 and the M69 and suffers from vehicle emissions. Scottish Power plans to build a combined cycle gas turbine power station near Enderby. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Department of the Environment takes careful note of that application and monitors it to ensure that there is no significant increase in environmental pollution in that highly populated area?

Mr. Clappison: We do, of course, welcome the report by the royal commission on environmental pollution. I well remember my visit to Enderby and I assure my hon. Friend that the proposals for a gas plant there will be subject to the stringent requirements of integrated pollution control that will address environmental effects.

Mr. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State has praised the work of the environmental industries group and the way in which it has demonstrated that trade can be won for this country by offering environmental solutions? Why have the Government backed away from their targets for volatile organic compounds, thereby considerably damaging trade prospects?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman is right. Of course we encourage environmentally friendly companies and try to win exports for them. He will be aware of the very important and high standards that we are achieving in emissions, and he might have mentioned the success that we have had in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. We are also taking a lead and working with other developed countries to reduce emissions further.
Our approach is far better than that proposed by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who raised this matter in a recent speech. He totally ignored the international dimension of the problem and the need to


give a lead to other countries. Most of what he promised has already been achieved. As for the target that he set, he seemed to think of a number and then double it.

Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise that Conservative Members know only too well what the Government have achieved in environmental protection? Will he also consider pressing the Treasury to do something about reducing the rate for gas-powered vehicles? Sweden and parts of the United States and Canada have already demonstrated how such vehicles can help to control emissions and to keep the environment clean.

Mr. Clappison: My right hon. Friend has played a very distinctive part in the Government's environmental successes, and he will be aware that we have taken a step in the direction that he favours. His point is certainly well made.

Mr. Chris Davies: The Minister will note from the Audit Commission's performance indicators, which were published last week, that the rate of household waste recycling stands at only 4 per cent., and that there was a huge contrast between well performing councils such as Richmond, Adur and Sutton, and badly performing ones such as Oldham and many others. How will the Government meet the targets they have set for themselves of recycling 25 per cent. of household waste by 2000? Surely that goal is now impossible to meet.

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman should be aware of the ambitious targets that we set in our strategy to make waste work. He will be aware of the incentives that we have put in place for councils to do just that and to promote recycling. The obligation is on councils to meet the targets, which are there for them to achieve. The hon. Gentleman will know of the lead that we have given them.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend again consider and consult the police on carrying out prosecutions against owners of vehicles and vehicle fleets that emit massive amounts of exhaust? It is quite wrong for such vehicles to spew out sulphur at those sitting behind them. We should be doing more about that problem.

Mr. Clappison: My right hon. Friend's point is very understandable and fair. He will know of the powers that have been provided to have more spot checks on vehicles. It is very important that vehicle engines should be well tuned to avoid the type of emissions to which he referred.

Biodiversity

Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implementation by his Department of international agreements on biodiversity. [20938]

Mr. Gummer: The United Kingdom is the world leader in the national implementation of the biodiversity convention. A draft action plan for the UK has already been published. I have already welcomed the report of the biodiversity steering group, and the full response warranted by such an excellent report will be published in the spring.

Ms Quin: Does the Minister therefore agree with me that urgent action is needed to ensure the survival of threatened species, such as the red squirrel population in the north-east of England? When will the Government publish the strategy for survival of red squirrels, which was mentioned by the Under-Secretary in a recent Adjournment debate on this subject?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady will know that no other country has done as much or moved as quickly as we have in implementing the biodiversity convention. It is a pity that the Labour party did not support this major lead by the United Kingdom. As I have already said, we will publish in the spring our response to the working party's excellent biodiversity report. I think that she will be very pleased with that aspect of it that relates to the red squirrel.

Rights of Way

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to simplify the procedure for diverting rights of way. [20939]

Mr. Clappison: Current procedures are well established and enable all parties to express their views. However, we recognise that some people wish that the procedures were simpler and more flexible. Therefore, the rural White Paper states our intention to evaluate local experience in managing the network before consulting on proposals for change.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's endorsement of the target that all paths should be usable by 2000? Does he agree that, if that target is to be reached in that period, paths will become increasingly more contentious, and we will therefore need a simple procedure to divert paths? May I ask his Department to re-examine its recently introduced procedure whereby a separate order is necessary for cancellation, diversion and re-creation of paths, which would make it far more difficult and expensive to divert footpaths?

Mr. Clappison: The Government remain committed to our ambitious rights of way target for 2000. As my hon. Friend says, in some quarters it is thought that the system is not simple enough. We have undertaken to look at local experience, particularly that of parish councils.
My hon. Friend's point about procedures is interesting and important. I understand that there is no reason why combined procedures for combined advertisements should not be adopted—but I shall look further into that.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister will know what a powerful lobby the farmers and large landowners are, and how they often get rid of public rights of way. Will he bear in mind the fact that the people of this country have a right to the countryside, and that it is consistently obstructed by many farmers? Is it not about time that the hon. Gentleman did something to open up more public rights of way, not to close them down or even divert them?

Mr. Clappison: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman pays no heed to our target for rights of way by 2000. We rely on farmers and landowners to play their part in


managing access to the countryside. The hon. Gentleman's vision of uncontrolled access would not be in the true interests of the countryside or of those who want to enjoy it constructively.

Sir Jim Spicer: In his initial reply my hon. Friend said that some people would like the system simplified. In my view, 99 per cent. of the people of this country would like the rights of way system simplified. It is only the other nutty 1 per cent. who force us into great expense and time wasting. Without them, we could have better rights of way and access for more people—no one in the countryside does not want that. Will my hon. Friend consider the views of the 99 per cent., not the 1 per cent?

Mr. Clappison: I take my hon. Friend's point. His views may well be reflected in the local experience that we are looking to.

Housing Need

Mr. Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the backlog of unmet housing need. [20940]

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): The Government are considering what further work could yield meaningful figures on unmet housing need, following the Environment Select Committee's report on this question.

Mr. Betts: Surely the Minister is aware of a number of assessments of housing need, including one by his former chief economic adviser, Dr. Holman, to the effect that about 100,000 houses a year should be built in the social rented sector. How then can he justify allowing the number of starts in that sector to fall to its lowest level since the war, with a 42 per cent. cut in public investment in housing since 1992? Is it that the Minister no longer takes his own advisers seriously; or that he does not take housing need seriously; or that every priority has now been cast aside in the desperate search for tax cuts before the general election?

Mr. Curry: When the hon. Gentleman makes comments like that, I certainly do not take him seriously. He has been involved in housing, so he will know that evaluating housing need is a complex task, involving many projections—for instance, of household formation. He will know that the adviser, Dr. Holman, to whom he refers admits that many of his figures are based on extrapolations. It is genuinely difficult to estimate figures. Following the Select Committee's report, I have undertaken to do further work to see whether it is possible to come up with a more effective, meaningful figure for housing need.
What matters is not new starts but the number of tenancies created. That is the real measure of availability of such housing, and it is what we intend to pursue.

Sir Irvine Patnick: When does my hon. Friend propose to take action on councils such as the one that used to be led by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts)—Sheffield council, which takes seven weeks to re-let council houses, which does not

collect its council house rents, and which does not collect its council taxes? Sheffield has been given more money in its education standard spending assessment this year, more money for community care, more money in revenue support grant and more money from business rates. Yet its knee-jerk reaction is always to say, like Oliver Twist, "Please, may we have some more?" But the word "please" is never heard.

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. The performance indicators recently published demonstrate what councils are really doing to deliver their statutory duties. If they are not collecting rents or filling void properties, they are letting down the people in their communities who depend on them. Efficiency is not just a question of self-satisfaction; it is about helping people get the services they deserve.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Have not the Government betrayed thousands of homeless people because of their political dogma, as they will not allow councils to use capital receipts to build affordable social housing? When will the Government do something about homelessness?

Mr. Curry: First, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that the allegation that housing receipts are sitting there unused is nonsense. He will also know that that is Labour's only housing policy. It was fascinating that, a couple of weeks ago, there was the great Labour party shindig at the Queen Elizabeth II centre and everyone was saying, "Now, at last, we shall have some inkling of Labour's housing policy," but we heard only pieties, platitudes and pomposity, and nobody is any the wiser.

Mr. Betts: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Housing and Regeneration

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last visited Basildon to assess housing and regeneration. [20941]

Mr. Curry: I met market traders and councillors in Basildon, with whom I discussed plans to revitalise the town centre. I also visited Leigh-on-Sea in Southend, where I discussed plans—[Interruption.] The Opposition may remember that I represented Southend in the European Parliament. It is an area for which I have great affection. In Leigh-on-Sea, I discussed plans for a new parish council.

Madam Speaker: Order. The question to the Minister concerns only Basildon and when he last visited Basildon.

Mr. Amess: Will my hon. Friend accept my gratitude and that of other local residents for all the assistance that the Government have given to redeveloping the Siporex Five Links Bluehouse estate following representations from the former Conservative council, despite the Opposition trying to claim credit for it? Will my


hon. Friend now please do all that he can to complete the development and thus restore confidence in the local housing market?

Mr. Curry: I felt that, in the age of open government, the House would require a full account of my travels on that day.

Madam Speaker: Order. The House requires Ministers to answer only the substantive question.

Mr. Curry: In regard to Basildon, which is the local authority adjacent to Southend, I hear what my hon. Friend says. There has indeed been a major commitment to the regeneration of estates. It is a successful programme. Clearly, we have to assess the requirements for funding on their merits, but I have no doubt that the schemes will be pursued with sufficient vigour for us to take seriously their claims on future resources.

Home Owners

Mr. Faulds: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures his Department is taking to reduce the number of home owners who will (a) be unable to move house as a result of negative equity and (b) lose their homes through repossession in 1996. [20942]

Mr. Gummer: Mortgage rates are the lowest for 30 years. Average mortgage payments are more than £150 a month lower than in October 1990. Many home owners are about to be notified of a further cut in mortgage payments. House prices have risen at a sustainable rate for the past seven consecutive months. That is all due to the success of the Government's economic policies which are meeting effectively the needs of home owners.

Mr. Faulds: In view of the fact that 1,000 families a week are losing their homes through repossession, why is there nothing in the Housing Bill to help home owners who are trapped in negative equity or facing repossession?

Mr. Gummer: I would take the hon. Gentleman's comment more seriously had the speech by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made any proposals on those matters. The hon. Gentleman rarely attends Environment questions, but if he did so more regularly, he would see that every creative idea about home ownership comes from the Government, and every attempt to stop it comes from the Opposition.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the scandals for those facing housing problems in London is that thousands of empty council houses are owned by Labour councils, who are indifferent to the fate of council taxpayers, local tenants and those seeking somewhere to live?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend does not mention also the fact that the Labour party has opposed every change to help home ownership since the Government have been in power. Had Labour been in power, there would have been no right to buy, so the 200 families a day who are now buying their own homes through that and similar

schemes would not be able to do so. Labour Members dare not speak on home ownership issues because they have no answers.

Building Research Establishment

Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the privatisation of the Building Research Establishment. [20943]

The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): PA Consulting submitted its report last month on the options for transferring the Building Research Establishment to the private sector. I am currently considering its findings, and in the near future I expect to reach a decision collectively with colleagues on the way forward.

Mr. Hanson: Does the Minister accept that the safety of buildings should be a matter of public concern, not private profit? Will he take on board the concerns of the construction industry, and drop the proposal?

Mr. Jones: I certainly take on board what the construction industry has to say. That is why representatives of the industry were involved in the assessment procedure. They have made a suggestion themselves, which I am seriously considering.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that one of the valuable services provided by the Building Research Establishment up to now is advice to councils on asbestos removal? Will he also confirm that it would have been better for Westminster city council to seek such advice from the Building Research Establishment than for Tory councillors to get together in a secret cabal to place homeless families in buildings that they knew to be riddled with asbestos—and, as an independent report has confirmed, to do it for cheap, short-term party political gain?

Mr. Jones: The Government's view is that all organisations should take into account all sensible advice on health and safety. That continues to be our policy, and will be for as long as the present Government are here and determined to tackle any problems that occur.

Revenue Support Grant

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the representations which he has received on the 1996–97 revenue support grant settlement. [20944]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We took into consideration all representations received from English local authorities and their associations during the statutory consultation period on the 1996–97 local authority finance settlement.

Mr. Jones: Why did the Government construct a settlement that puts so much pressure on local education authorities? Will not 25 per cent. of councils impose real-terms cuts on our schools, and will not taxpayers pay more and get less under the present Government?

Sir Paul Beresford: The only reason for which I can conclude that the hon. Gentleman might be right is the incompetence of local authorities. Their standard spending assessment for education has risen by 4.5 per cent.

Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the local authority settlement provided sufficient extra money for education, community care and the police? Is it not up to local authorities to get their priorities right, and stop wasting money on politically correct initiatives such as equality units—as Labour-controlled Croydon council has, at a cost of nearly £250,000—and paying councillors more in special allowances? Is that not a disgrace?

Sir Paul Beresford: I entirely agree. I have a similar interest in that council, which is proving to be as notorious as any other Labour authority.

Ms Armstrong: May we have the truth from the Minister? Is not the truth that local authorities received only an additional 1.2 per cent. in money, that the SSA did not relate to the money that it actually received and that the Government have deliberately pushed money into council tax because they want to impose yet another Tory tax on people throughout the country? People are paying more and getting less, and the Government want to shift the blame to councils. That is the truth, is it not?

Sir Paul Beresford: No, it is not the truth. The funding is more than adequate.
I am interested in the way in which the Labour party seems to be attacking the figures. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) adapted them to apply Westminster's funding to all other local authorities. Labour's figures seem to be completely fictitious: I have not been able to work out how they were arrived at, and nor has anyone else in the Department. If we employed the same fictitious method, using Tower Hamlets as a base, we would be giving each council tax payer in Westminster £204, in Wandsworth £1,290 and in St. Helen's £1,681. The problem is that Labour Front Benchers do not understand the figures.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of getting £5 million more than it expected under the revenue support grant, Ealing Labour council—[Interruption.] Yes. It is at it again. It is cutting disability grants, travel passes for disabled people, and travel allowances for children to school—thereby preventing choice of school. Many other deplorable policies are being introduced in Ealing, on disgraceful and dogmatic grounds, to the detriment of our community. We will throw the council out for its wickedness.

Sir Paul Beresford: I agree with my hon. Friend and, of course, if the effort that was put into providing those dramatic blows was put into efficiency, those services could be provided at lower cost.

Capital Challenge

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with local authority associations concerning capital challenge. [209451

Mr. Gummer: The Minister for Local Government and Housing met them on Monday 18 March.

Mr. Livingstone: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the funds available will be top-sliced from existing capital programmes and that there will be no additional resources? The whole thing is just a con.

Mr. Gummer: The fact is that, by having a challenge system, we ensure that those who use the money best and get the best value for money get the money they need. I am pleased to see that the borough of Brent—now under new management, and not the worst borough in London as the hon. Gentleman once called it—is in favour of that system. That is because the council has seen how successful the system is, and that is why the council is so good.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that the people of Denton in the borough of Gravesham are delighted with the challenge fund, because they have waited for the improvements in Denton for many years and they have not had any progress out of the Labour-controlled councils' It is only the Government's challenge fund that is turning that project into reality.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed that the Labour party cannot take seriously that which has given a great deal of help to many people in some of the most deprived areas in the United Kingdom. The great advantage of the challenge fund is that councils do not get the money just because they have the need: they get the money just because they can meet the need. The Opposition cannot meet the needs of those who are most in need.

Mr. Vaz: When will the Secretary of State realise that the competition that he is proposing in capital challenge is exactly the same in principle as that proposed for the single regeneration budget? He will know about the disastrous bidding process that led to numerous complaints about the way in which that process operated. Is not capital challenge just another cynical attempt by the Government and the Secretary of State to reduce further the ability of local government to make decisions locally, free from his interference and that of his ministerial colleagues?

Mr. Gummer: The all-party Select Committee on the Environment praised that system. The local government organisations have seen how successful it is, and it will mean that local government has much more say over what it does. All local government has to do is show that it will use the money properly. The hon. Gentleman is totally out of touch with his own members in the country. If he travelled around and met a few sane Labour members—there are a few—he would realise that what he has said has no connection with what they say.

Home Energy Conservation Grants

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of senior citizen households over 60 years of age who will not now be eligible for home energy conservation grants because of the introduction of means-testing. [20946]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: None.

Mr. Griffiths: When fewer than one in 10 senior citizens are able to claim those grants and when up to 6 million of them live in houses without proper home insulation, is it not despicable that the Government are abolishing the non-means-tested insulation grants for pensioners? Is that not a cynical betrayal of the Government's promise to help pensioners with the VAT that they have imposed on heating and cooking?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman says that we are abolishing the grants. Since they are continuing to be paid, he is clearly talking rubbish.

Mrs. Peacock: How many such grants have been given since 1991 and what amount of money has been involved?

Mr. Jones: Close on 2 million people have benefited and that is an important contribution to ensuring that the fuel-poor have a higher standard of living in the future.

Ms Ruddock: Surely the Minister is not denying that the criteria for eligibility for the scheme have been changed. Indeed, the consequence of cutting the budget by one third and introducing new criteria is that 200,000 desperate households have applied and are on a waiting list. Is the Minister aware that three quarters of those people who have applied for the grant in the past quarter will not get their work done until the new financial year?
When they get it done, they and their applications will use up half the budget for that financial year. Does that not make complete nonsense of the Government's energy conservation policy and of their commitment to so-called sustainable development?

Mr. Jones: As I have said in the House several times, £30 million was added to HEES in anticipation of the second stage of value added tax, which was rejected by the House. Therefore, the VAT compensation package was altered. Of course I understand the hon. Lady's point about those who are better off edging out the fuel poor. It is rather deplorable that some organisations in society are currently deliberately promoting the scheme to those people, thus disadvantaging the people whom we most wish to target. Perhaps I could remind the hon. Lady that pressure for amending the scheme so that it did not extend to those who were much better off came from neighbourhood energy action and others.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the Minister has not mastered his brief and has perhaps inadvertently misled the House, I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Houses in Multiple Occupation

Mr. Gallie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to improve standards in houses in multiple occupation; and if he will make a statement. [20947]

Mr. Curry: The Housing Bill, which is currently in Committee, contains a very substantial package of measures designed to improve standards in houses in multiple occupation in England and Wales.

Mr. Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In Scotland there are great problems, particularly in town centres where large numbers of older premises are taken over by housing benefit tenants, many of whom live in very cramped conditions. Can my hon. Friend help to relieve that problem?

Mr. Curry: I know how energetically my hon. Friend works in his constituency. He will know that the Housing Bill, which I am presently taking through the House, contains special control provisions. They will be available for registration schemes where there is a real problem with a concentration of benefit hostels, and they will give local authorities a great deal more discretion in their ability to manage such hostels in the event of management failure. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, because it may be that some of the circumstances in his constituency reflect those in the English towns where we have sought to address those problems.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Minister aware that people are 28 times more likely to be killed or injured by fire in multiple-occupation houses than in other accommodation? Why is he letting his obsession with deregulation override the need for a mandatory licensing system that would raise standards and save lives?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady has not understood the measure. A registration scheme is available for all local authorities that wish to apply it. The measures in the Housing Bill extend the duty of local authorities to ensure adequate means of escape from fire to a much wider range of houses in multiple occupation and allows them to introduce a duty on HMO landlords to make sure that there is adequate fire safety. The measures that we are placing in the hands of local authorities, which are responsible for these matters, give them adequate powers to deal with these matters without being excessively bureaucratic.

Area Cost Adjustment

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the review of the area cost adjustment; and when he now expects to have its findings. [20948]

Sir Paul Beresford: Local authorities and the local authority associations are making representations to the review team. I expect to have the review's findings at the end of June this year.

Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the frustrations of local authorities, particularly about the way in which the area cost adjustment works and is implemented? My hon. Friend will recall that the largest element of expenditure in local authorities is pay, and the fact that that is negotiated nationally should mean that area cost adjustment is unnecessary. Could my hon. Friend bring forward the review and get rid of area cost adjustment as quickly as possible?

Sir Paul Beresford: If my hon. Friend thinks about it, he will appreciate that there would be as many screams on one side as cries of joy on the other; hence the review.

Mr. Pike: Although the Minister may be right about there being screams from the losing side and cries of joy from the gaining side, does he accept that it is not good enough for local authorities that believe they are losing to find out in June or July that the system is to be reviewed and that they will have to wait until next year? Should they not be given some assistance this year?

Sir Paul Beresford: As an ex-local government man, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that that proposition just does not stand up.

Mr. Lidington: Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind, when he makes his decision, that if the area cost adjustment were abolished it would abolish jobs for teachers and police officers in every authority in the south-east of England?

Sir Paul Beresford: I think that that explains the dichotomy across the House.

Energy Conservation

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's record in energy conservation. [20950]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The United Kingdom has a good record in energy conservation. Primary energy consumption in the United Kingdom has remained fairly constant since 1970, despite the 60 per cent. rise in gross domestic product. The United Kingdom expects carbon dioxide emissions to be 4 to 8 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2000. We have a wide range of initiatives to promote energy efficiency, including the provision of information and advice, voluntary schemes, selective use of grants, incentives and regulation. For example, by December 1995, my Departments's energy efficiency best practice programme had generated energy savings worth at least £450 million a year.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Do not the Government's sustainable development indicators show that there is absolutely no room for complacency? Can the Minister explain how slashing the home energy efficiency scheme and putting value added tax at 17.5 per cent. on energy-saving materials can possibly help to improve the Government's record?

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Of course the hon. Lady is right: there is no room for complacency. A few moments ago, I explained the situation regarding HEES. It is difficult to

get the message across to individuals that they must use less energy, whether in their homes or in the way in which they use their motor vehicles. We will continue to try to get that message across, as, I hope, will individuals and local authorities, whatever their political persuasion.

Dr. Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have personally helped more than 200 of my constituents to get home energy conservation grants, and that those grants help them to insulate their homes, to draught-proof and to lag their pipes and to save up to 25 per cent. on their energy bills? Is he not right to target that money on the over-60s, who need those grants? Will he take my word for it that he has mastered his brief excellently?

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has certainly pointed out the importance of targeting. I remind him and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) that those who do not receive 100 per cent. grants in future will nevertheless get a 25 per cent. discount for the work, which is a substantial advantage and should motivate them to get the work done.

Wind Turbines

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to strengthen local authorities' planning powers with respect to the location of wind turbines. [20952]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Local planning authorities already have comprehensive planning powers over the location of wind turbines. These are fully explained in planning policy guidance note 22 on renewable energy.

Mr. Pickthall: Does the Minister not appreciate that the eagerness of some landowners to raise easy rents by having wind turbines on their land, combined with the insistence of operators to put them on prominent hill sites—often where the landscape is extremely valuable to this country—means that the visual amenity of these areas may be destroyed? Is it not the case that, while one planning authority might give planning permission for wind turbines, it is often the authority next door whose visual amenity is destroyed? Why is something not done about that?

Mr. Jones: It is extremely important that local authorities balance these environmental and energy considerations. I am satisfied that PPG22 does precisely that. If the hon. Gentleman has particular concerns about the way in which neighbouring local authorities co-operate, and would like to give me some examples, I would be happy to look at the matter sympathetically.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend listen carefully to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and make it possible for local authorities to ban these great lavatory brushes in the sky once and for all?

Mr. Jones: These planning applications, like others, must be looked at case by case. Although I understand that my hon. Friend does not like the appearance of wind turbines, they are an important element in generating clean energy for the future.

Area Cost Adjustment

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions are taking place, or are planned to take place, between his Department and the Association of County Councils regarding revisions to the area cost adjustment; and if he will make a statement. [20953]

Sir Paul Beresford: The Association of County Councils is discussing possible revisions to the area cost adjustment with the team set up to review the area cost adjustment. Once the review has reported, my officials will discuss the review's recommendations with all the local authority associations.

Mr. Nicholson: May I support most forcefully the point made a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)— [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Nicholson: In supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, may I point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that there are rather more Conservative Members representing areas that do not get the area cost adjustment than there are Conservative Members representing those that do? Does he recognise that the pay and other conditions that may have operated in 1990 at the height of the boom no longer operate in 1996? Therefore, will he urgently pursue his discussions with the ACC, which itself represents both areas receiving and those not receiving the area cost adjustment?

Sir Paul Beresford: As I have said before, the winners cheer and the losers scream. It will be interesting to see the reaction to the review when it reports. There will be an opportunity for all local authorities to make submissions during the consultation process.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March. [20966]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Wareing: Two weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister about unemployment, to which he gave an answer lambasting Liverpool city council. Will he now unequivocally condemn Tory Westminster council for risking the health of its people for political purposes by housing them in asbestos-ridden flats?

The Prime Minister: That issue was very properly investigated by Westminster, which commissioned an independent report. I understand that the council has taken action in the light of that independent report. Before the

hon. Gentleman goes further, he should compare the overall record of Westminster with that of other authorities. As he is sensitive about his local authority, appalling as it is, he should compare it with Lambeth and Hackney. He might look at the rent arrears in Lambeth, which are six times the level of Westminster, or the rent arrears in Hackney, which are 10 times as great. There are 21 times as many unoccupied dwellings in Lambeth and 23 times as many in Hackney. Whose housing policies are a disgrace?

Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the bovine spongiform encephalopathy issue is not really a party political crisis but a crisis for the whole nation? Can he persuade the Leader of the Opposition to stop making cheap party political points, which are doing this country and its farming community so much harm?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that anybody doubts the seriousness of the issue or the need to balance the competing interests of public health and the importance of the beef industry. It is important that we deal with the issue on the basis of rational, sensible decisions, based on proper information, not on hysteria. That is the way in which the Government have sought to deal with it thus far, and we will continue to do so.

Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister at least agree with me on the scientific basis of the case? Is it not, first, that scientists now say that there is a probable link between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human killer; secondly, that prior to 1989 there was contamination of the food chain by BSE; thirdly, that after the regulations of 1989 there was supposed to be no such contamination, but there were breaches of the regulations; and, fourthly, that the scientists say that if, now, new measures are adopted, the risk in future will be "extremely small"?
If we can agree that as the scientific basis, I ask the right hon. Gentleman—this is essential to restoring confidence—to quantify the risk from the period 1989 to now and the period now onwards when the risk is "extremely small". Without that quantification, I do not think that confidence will be restored.

The Prime Minister: It will be extremely difficult to restore confidence if right hon. and hon. Members continue to undermine that confidence whenever they have the opportunity to do so, for reasons that I think will seem unfathomable to people in the agriculture industry and to the wider public.
As for the scientific evidence, neither the right hon. Gentleman, nor I, nor, I suspect, any right hon. or hon. Member, has competence to make that judgment. That is why we have to rely on the advice that we have received from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which said that it does not believe that additional measures are justified at the present time. The House will be aware of what Professor Pattison has said on a number of occasions. He specifically said—it is very relevant to today's position:
In any common usage of the word, we"—
the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee —
think beef is safe. Anyone can eat beef or beef products and be safe.


That is the professional advice that we have received, and it is incumbent on us to accept and listen to that advice.

Mr. Blair: Did not the Secretary of State for Health make a statement in the House last week that earlier scientific advice had been wrong, and tell us to wait for two days for advice on whether it was safe for children, while the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was speculating about the killing of 4.5 million cows? Suddenly, the Secretary of State for Health appears to bristle with certainty and he tells us that the public are mad, not the cows. The matter has been handled with quite mind-boggling incompetence. I repeat that the scientists say that the risk in future is extremely small, but may I ask the Prime Minister once again to quantify that risk? As a matter of urgency, will he convene a meeting of producers and purchasers in the food industry to agree the necessary measures to restore confidence?

The Prime Minister: I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had done enough damage in the last few days—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order—all of you.

The Prime Minister: —for them to stop trying to create health scares by inviting responses from any Minister who can competently comment only on the basis of scientific advice. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. Since he wants to exchange quotations, may I say that it is not all that long ago that the shadow Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang)—who has acted far more responsibly than some of his hon. Friends—told the House that
the possibility of BSE being transmitted to humans seems remote"?—[Official Report, 25 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 994.]
The right hon. Gentleman knows the scientific evidence that we have received, and he knows the way in which we have been invited to proceed on the basis of it. For what reason does he continually try to undermine public confidence?

Mr. Blair: When the Scott report came out, the Prime Minister blamed my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). When this report came out, he has blamed other Opposition Members. Does he not realise that the country expects him, as Prime Minister, to take responsibility? Since he has mentioned my hon. Friend the shadow Minister of Agriculture, perhaps he will adopt the measures that my hon. Friend has proposed, and let us hope that confidence can be restored.

The Prime Minister: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman how it might be restored, again by quoting his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East:
We are talking about a huge industry and that is why we have to be very responsible and we must not hype something up and give the impression that it is wrong to eat beef or there is some evidence of a link if there is no evidence.
The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) have done everything they can to undermine confidence in beef and the agriculture industry. If they have undermined confidence to the extent that there is a serious problem, the agriculture industry and the public will know precisely whom to blame.

Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that consumers of beef are looking for further reassurance that British beef is best—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will be heard in this House.

Mr. Marland: I will start again, Madam Speaker. Is my right hon. Friend aware that consumers of beef are looking for further assurance that British beef is best? Does he agree that it is now time for the British media to stand up for Britain and to dispatch some investigative teams to Europe to study what is known there as staggers or manganese deficiency, which is often BSE by another name?

The Prime Minister: There are self-evidently two equally important interests to balance. First, there is the public concern about public health. That is of great importance to the Government, which is why we have repeatedly taken the advice on public health that we have been given. The second interest is confidence in the beef industry, the jobs it creates and its economic importance. I agree with my hon. Friend that we should look at both those matters and give them both great importance.

Mr. Ashdown: This morning, the National Farmers Union, which is presumably not hysterical, backed by the entire food industry, which is presumably not hysterical either, has called for older cows to be taken out of the human food chain. If the Prime Minister will not follow that advice, will he at least answer this question? What has he got to say to farmers, to abattoir managers and to cattle market operators? They have been ringing all morning to say, "My doors are closed, my market has gone and in two weeks, my business will be in ruins. What do I do now?"

The Prime Minister: I have received a letter from Sir David Naish and I have a copy of the letter that he sent to the Leader of the Opposition and to the right hon. Gentleman, the leader of the Liberal Democrats. My colleagues and I will study carefully the contents of the letter I have received. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening, he will get his answer.
There are two reasons for proceeding in the way that Sir David recommends. The first is on public health grounds, if science recommends it; but science does not recommend it, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The second is if it proves necessary to restore confidence to the market because ill-conceived comments, ignorant of science, mean that sensible, practical measures that should have restored confidence will not restore confidence. I hope that sound judgment will prevail. If it does not, those who have destroyed that confidence will be the people to blame and everyone will be aware of that. They sit there, there and there on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Faber: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Wiltshire police force on the 5 per cent. fall in recorded crime which was announced today? When he considers further proposals on sentencing, will he give careful consideration to the views of the chief constable of Wiltshire? He believes that the vast majority of crime is perpetrated by a few known offenders and that
custodial sentences take them out of the game.

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with that view, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I am delighted that, again, crime figures are falling in the United Kingdom. Today's figures show that recorded crime fell by almost 2.5 per cent last year. With the falls in the past two years, that represents the largest fall since records began more than a century ago. That has been achieved despite the fact that the Opposition have continually opposed the law and order measures which we have introduced—measures which, when my right hon. and learned Friend introduced them, they dismissed as gimmicks. The only gimmicks on crime are those from the Opposition. We are producing measures that are beating the criminal and bringing down crime.

Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March. [20967]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hall: Given the Prime Minister's disgraceful performance this afternoon, does he remember telling the House last week that the Government have always and immediately acted on the expert advice given to them by scientists on bovine spongiform encephalopathy? In the light of that claim, can he tell the House why the Government failed immediately to implement the recommendations of the Tyrrell report to sample cattle brains to monitor BSE? We need a straightforward answer to that question.

The Prime Minister: We are continually taking professional advice on health matters. Opposition Members are asking me not to take the professional advice but to do something else. If I had not taken the

professional advice on the question of BSE, the hon. Gentleman might have had some cause for complaint. As it is, he has none—except against his own Front Bench.

Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that McDonald's, the media and the Labour party have one thing in common: they are seeking to sell something, be it beefburgers, newspapers or themselves, and the Government have a heavier and wider responsibility to give leadership and guidance, based on the best possible scientific advice?

The Prime Minister: First, we have to make judgments on what is in the interests of public health, and we must base them on the advice that we get, because Ministers do not have the medical competence to make those judgments themselves. Secondly, we have to make judgments about what is right for the industry, if other people, with ill-thought-out comments, damage it when it should not have faced the damage that may have been created by comments that should never have been made.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

ROAD TRAFFIC

That the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1996 (S. I., 1996, No. 163) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

PUBLIC PASSENGER TRANSPORT

That the Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) (Amendment) Regulations 1996 (S. I., 1996, No. 167) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Question agreed to.

Low Wages and Income-related Benefits (Publication of Information)

Mr. Denis MacShane: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require employers to publish, in the form of an annual statement, information showing the number and percentage of their employees in receipt of income-related benefits and the proportion of their disposable income accounted for by wages and income-related benefits, respectively.
Were this Bill to move to Committee, it might need some changes to ensure that it neither breaches the confidentiality of employees receiving benefit nor places a new red tape burden on employers—especially the responsible small businesses that pay fair wages, for which, of course, the Labour party is now the chief spokesman and hope.
In 1944, during the war, Sir Winston Churchill, who used to insist on one-page summaries of important measures, received a one-page summary of the famous 1944 White Paper on full employment. That document can be seen at the Public Record Office in Kew. Paragraph 8(a) calls for
better statistics and other information from private enterprise
about the nature of the labour market. That animates the spirit of my Bill, just as Sir Winston Churchill's spirited defence of putting a floor under low-wage exploitation when he set up wages councils in 1909 remains the core reason for introducing a job-creating, national minimum wage system today.
If Sir Winston were alive today, as a one-nation Conservative, he would be appalled at the mean-spirited public policy of reducing so many of our employed people to the humiliation of means-tested dependency on welfare benefits. Indeed, as a classical Conservative economist, Sir Winston would have been appalled at the huge taxpayers' subsidy going to low-pay firms. Last week, I received answers to some parliamentary questions revealing that welfare benefits amounting to about £2.9 billion—£120 for every taxpayer in the country—are being paid to people in employment.
That figure has nearly trebled in the past four years. If that upward progression continues, whether geometrically or exponentially—that is, if it doubles every two or three years, as it is doing under the current Secretary of State for Social Security—by the beginning of the next century we shall be paying more in subsidies to low-pay firms that we spend on our national education budget.
Obviously, all efforts to get people off welfare and into work should be applauded. Professor Richard Layard and Professor Dennis Snower and others have suggested schemes, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the shadow Chancellor. In other countries, such as the United States, policymakers have pioneered in-work benefit schemes, but have combined them with a minimum wage to provide a floor below which employees cannot be exploited.
However, in Britain, the cold-blooded deliberate creation of a two-nation society requires the opening of a vast new world of low-paid work that the taxpayer has to subsidise. As the thousands of millions of pounds paid in benefits to people in work increase, the wages of people in work go steadily down.
In my constituency, jobs paying as little as £1.44 an hour are being advertised in the jobcentre. A quarter of all the full-time jobs advertised in Rotherham jobcentre offer pay of less than £3 an hour. In Yorkshire as a whole, there are more full-time jobs advertised at under £3 an hour than there are part-time jobs paid at that rate. Thus a Gresham's law of wages can now be said to exist: bad wages are driving out good or fair wages. We shall soon see jobs paying £1 or 50p an hour, because the employers offering them will know that under present policies the Government will subsidise them—a subsidy that will increase over the next three to five years to at least £10 billion.
All categories are covered. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the, Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) for showing me a parliamentary reply that he received today, which reveals that 70,000 professional, managerial and education jobs have such low pay that employees in them are eligible for family credit.
That trend is now being built into the wage-setting mechanism. I first became aware of that fact a year and a half ago at a meeting of bus companies here in the House. Bus managers from London said that, under the rules of competition and deregulation, they were forced to offer employment only or principally to people eligible for welfare benefits. Jobcentres collude with benefit agencies, one phoning the other to approve so-called fast family credit, so that the employer offering low wages will know that his employees will get the subsidies. In other words. Government officials are acting as the agents of low-paying employers to create a new state-subsidised employment sector.
The new clients of that new culture of welfare dependency are exploitative low-pay firms that undercut their business rivals thanks to massive state subsidies. Which are those firms? I can name two. Growthbeat Ltd., of Barrowden, near Oakham in Leicestershire, paid a woman £150 to be on duty for 112 hours a week—Monday to Sunday, 5 pm to 9 am. Starlite Garments, in Blackburn, Lancashire, paid two women £25 for a 42.5-hour week-59p an hour.
Little wonder that many citizens look at the madhouse economics of that system, decide that they want no part of a labour market based on a war of all against all, and drop out into the black economy, the drugs economy, or the do-nothing economy. Those who suffer most are the honest and responsible firms that seek to pay a living wage and do not use the benefit system as an excuse to pay low or ever-decreasing wages—this certainly angers my friends in the small business community in Rotherham.
This issue is part of a larger debate about our labour market—about which we need to know far more information. We need a responsibly set minimum wage that is not job destructive; we need effective negotiating rights for workers; and we must have, as Sir Winston Churchill agreed in 1944, the information to carry out the correct analysis to arrive at the best policies to stop this destructive spiral into low pay and this ever-increasing taxpayers' bill to subsidise low pay firms. My Bill would ensure the provision of that information, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Denis MacShane, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. Hugh Bayley, Mr. Andrew Miller, Ms Ann Coffey, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. Neil Gerrard and Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

Low WAGES AND INCOME-RELATED BENEFITS (PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION)

Mr. MacShane accordingly presented a Bill to require employers to publish, in the form of an annual statement, information showing the number and percentage of their employees in receipt of income-related benefits and the proportion of their disposable income accounted for by wages and income-related benefits, respectively: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 May and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

Opposition Day

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Nuclear Privatisation

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move,
That this House notes that the Government has rushed ahead with the proposed sale of parts of the British nuclear industry without proper debate or scrutiny; has not yet found time to reply to or debate the report of the Trade and Industry Committee despite its urgency; has presided over the spreading of uncertainty due to rumours about a trade sale, failure to disclose fully safety issues, and not setting out fully the details of how privatised liabilities will be discharged; believes that the Government's mismanagement of the process has made it impossible for any sale price fully to recompense the taxpayer for decades of investment in the nuclear industry and that the sale should now be called off because of the costs to the taxpayer and the potential hazards to the public.
Today we are debating one of the most reckless gambles that the Government have taken: the decision to privatise part of the nuclear power industry. The issue raises a large number of unanswered questions, the first of which is: why? Why are the Government going ahead with the privatisation on this basis and on this time scale? I see that the Government—in their amendment to our motion, which is on the Order Paper—have referred somewhat sniffily to their intention to give what they call a considered response to the Trade and Industry Select Committee report within the normal time scale. I am not exactly sure what that means—it has been known for such responses to take months, if not years. What is quite clear is that, with the publication of the prospectus only a few days away, any considered response seems likely to have been overtaken by events.
We have asked: why this sale? Today, we want to hear from Ministers what advice the Government received and, in particular, whether they were advised that the industry should not, in the public interest, be sold into the private sector. I find it extraordinary that the Government have not found time to debate the report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee before continuing to press ahead with the sale—all the more extraordinary because so many of the questions raised by the report remain unanswered.
For example, we are still not being told what the Government mean by saying that liabilities will follow the assets into the private sector. We do not know whether the Government intend to go ahead with flotation or are considering a trade sale—which has at least twice been rumoured and in itself is a confession that they may fear a failed flotation precisely because of all the unanswered questions and unresolved risks. Going ahead in this way is all the more strange because of the fresh concern about safety issues.
We argue in our motion that this sale should be called off because of the cost to the taxpayer and the potential hazards to the public. One simple statistic alone gives an indication that the taxpayer is being cheated. The Government have never aimed to raise more than £2.6 billion from the sale, but the reactors they are selling cost the taxpayer £13 billion to build. For example, one reactor alone—Sizewell B, the newest—cost more than £2.6 billion.
Quite apart from the poor value for money at the likely sale price, there is the question of the liabilities with which the taxpayer will continue to be saddled.
The stations liable to produce costs in the relatively short term without any long-term counterbalancing revenue are due to stay in public hands. The only stations expected to produce revenue in the long term will be sold, and their revenues will thereby go into private hands. In other words, on balance, liability-generating stations will stay with the taxpayer and income-generating stations will go to the private investor.
No doubt that equation caused the Government's merchant bank, Barclays de Zoete Wedd, to say in its advice to City interests that this privatisation offers the investor £2 billion of what it calls "free" cash in the next five years. Presumably, that advice also reflects assumptions about whether this privatisation, like the others, will be so structured that the privatised company does not, as it properly should, carry on its balance sheet an element of debt, so that the taxpayer and the consumer can expect some further return from the investment that they have funded—and funded more than once. I hope that, when he replies, the Minister will cast light on whether debt will appear on the balance sheet.
I note with dismay that it is intended that, in this industry, like the others, executives will be able to benefit from share options similar to those that have done so much to bring other privatised industries into disrepute. If that precedent is followed, the precedent of not including any debt on the balance sheet may well be followed.
The Government have consistently argued nevertheless that this is not a straight give-away—poor value for money in terms of the revenues raised compared with the cost of creating the assets being privatised—because the long-term liabilities in decommissioning, fuel reprocessing and waste disposal costs will follow those assets into the private sector. In other words, the Government claim that those who today would draw the profits on the taxpayer's investment will later pick up the bill that would otherwise fall to the taxpayer.
The big question is, do we believe the Government? If we do—or rather, if investors do—I suspect that they have no sale, but do we, or can we, possibly believe them? The omens are not good.
The Government have agreed that the privatised industry must set up a ring-fenced fund into which the company will pay money which will in effect be held in trust to meet the potentially huge future costs of decommissioning and closure. The amount that the company needs to set aside if it is to be expected fully to meet those costs is, however, heavily conditioned by technical accounting decisions such as the extent to which the expected liabilities are discounted by being met from money set aside today and invested to build up reserves to meet those future bills.
At the outset, the calculations were sensibly done, on a very prudent basis, discounting the enormous costs of nearly £15 billion thought to be required by about 2 per cent. a year. City commentators have hitherto suggested that that would require the privatised company to set aside sums assessed at between £30 million and £50 million a year.
Yesterday, however, the Secretary of State announced an initial endowment into the fund of £230 million from British Energy, and additional sums of about £16 million

a year "initially". It is hard to judge from those figures whether the Government are being unduly pessimistic or optimistic, or whether they are being prudent regarding the amount of provision required, but anyway, if that initial sum is being set aside by British Energy today, when its component parts are in the public sector, that sum is coming from the taxpayer and the consumer.
It was far from clear from the evidence given to the Select Committee by the Minister for Industry and Energy whether that special fund—we agree that a special fund is required—is even intended to pick up the full bill for liabilities resulting from the assets that the company will acquire. There seemed to be a hint in what the Minister said in evidence that only part of those enormous costs will be covered—leaving the rest, presumably, with the public sector and the taxpayer. That would be a disgraceful betrayal of the public interest.
The scale of the potential betrayal is what is so staggering. The Select Committee report suggests that, far from the segregated fund to cover liabilities covering all long-term costs, it is now intended to cover only the direct costs of initial decommissioning, excluding defuelling—which amounts to two thirds of the cost of the first stage of closure—and a variety of other identified costs. Table 1 in the Select Committee report suggests that that may mean that as little as £1.2 billion may be covered by the fund out of total liabilities assessed at £7.6 billion—and that assessment is made on a discounted basis. If we take the figures on an assessment of undiscounted costs, eliminating any bias created by picking different figures to discount those costs, we are talking about a provision of more than £4 billion against total costs of nearly £15 billion—so much for liabilities following assets.
We already knew that the taxpayer would lose out to some degree, because the Red Book for 1996–97 told us so. The Red Book for 1995–96 showed that the industry expected to contribute £560 million in total from this year and next year to public funds. However, it is now expected to receive a total subvention from public funds of £230 million in this year and the next, and a further £160 million in 1998–99. In other words, it is admitted up front that the privatisation will cost the taxpayer £650 million in the first full year following the sale and at least £1 billion in the three years to 1998–99.
Yesterday, when he opened Sizewell B just in time to sell it, the Secretary of State announced that British Energy will place an initial endowment of £230 million in the segregated fund to be established to meet its long-term liabilities with an initial future contribution of £16 million per year.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Lady say whether Labour would renationalise Sizewell B and the rest of the nuclear industry—yes or no?

Mrs. Beckett: There has been no suggestion of renationalising the company or companies if they are privatised. However, whether they will be privatised depends very much on the answers that we and investors get to the questions that will be asked today.
As I was saying, the yearly contribution being suggested now is substantially less than any City analyst has hitherto said would be necessary. The yearly sum may


have been reduced as a consequence of the substantial up-front endowment announced by the Secretary of State yesterday. However, by a remarkable coincidence, that endowment is exactly the sum that this year's Red Book shows as the total contribution to the industry by the taxpayer in the next two years. In other words, it looks as though, from the very start, the taxpayer is expected to cough up in advance, and that investors' liabilities will be reduced as a consequence.
Apart from the issue of inescapable costs—which will have to be borne somehow and somewhere as the power stations reach the end of their lives and must be decommissioned and destroyed—there is the issue of the potential risk and cost of accidents. The Government say that the company will have to insure itself against the risk of an accident whose clean-up costs amount to £140 million. All liabilities above that will fall on the Government—although they may be able to share a further £140 million through international agreement. However, anything above that sum would fall straight on the taxpayer.
An assessment of the cost of the Chernobyl disaster, for example, suggests that such liabilities could be very heavy. We have only to look at the potential costs of the present problem of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to see how readily any accidents would cost much larger sums than those for which this industry is required to be covered. There is no reason why the privatised company should not be required to insure itself for much larger sums in the commercial markets. That, too, will make a substantial difference to the commercial outcome and to the prospects of the sale.
In its evidence to the Select Committee, the CBI pointed out that there are many other private sector industries, such as the chemical industry, which have to pay premiums on commercial insurance for far larger sums than this industry is being required to shoulder. So far is it from being justified that it should be required to insure for only such a small amount that private sector competitors argue that unless the industry is forced to carry much heavier insurance, this light insurance regime will itself amount to a large and unfair subsidy to the privatised industry—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) would oppose that.
This is why the Select Committee recommended that the Government reconsider. The amount of insurance that the industry is required to carry is also relevant to concerns about safety, which are directly linked not just to concerns about the sale but to anxieties about the value of the sale. There is a real worry that, as Scottish Nuclear's former director of safety said in his evidence,
a privatised utility is likely to seek to make small erosions into safety margins for commercial gain.
There are also worries that unless carefully monitored and supervised British Energy might, if it follows the path of other privatisations, shed staff purely on economic grounds, in terms of reducing the numbers and costs of those employed without sufficient consideration for what high safety standards would require.

Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Lady has referred to the former safety director of Scottish Nuclear. May I refer her to the operational safety review team—OSART report, independently undertaken by people outside this

country, which shows quite clearly that safety standards at the Hunterston plant since the restructuring of the industry have improved beyond recognition—this in the run-up to privatisation. There is no reason why that improvement should not be maintained after privatisation.

Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the improvement has taken place in the run-up to privatisation, so he would be hard pushed to attribute it directly to a privatisation that has not yet taken place. What he says, while interesting and welcome, in no way impinges on the observations of Captain Killick, who has expressed concern that, in the long term, commercial considerations and safety margins are likely to be offset against each other.
One way in which safety margins may be eroded has to do with the running of the stations and the pressure that we believe is more likely to be exerted in the private sector for unsustainably high output. Part of the assessment of the sale value is based on the use of a load factor—the proportion of the year during which a reactor runs at full capacity. The sale value assumes that the load factor will average 82.5 per cent., but the best ever performance of the advanced gas-cooled reactors in the sale is 80 per cent.—and last year it was 74 per cent. I am assured by industry experts that there is no chance of these stations running at the high load factor suggested as the basis for assessing the value of the investment; and that they are already being run above their design capability.
This would mean that investors judging on the basis of such a load factor might be misled as to the possible value of their investment. One of the Select Committee's advisers, Dr. MacKerron, suggests that a more realistic factor would be 70 per cent., and that on that basis the sale might raise as little as £1 billion. Yet the House will be aware that the Government need to raise at least £2.6 billion in order—even on their figures—to cover the costs of decommissioning and disposal of the older Magnox reactors that are being left in the hands of the taxpayer.
A look at the Government's assessment of these costs suggests that it is optimistic in any case. There is little question but that the power stations being sold have been run for longer periods at maximum power in recent months. Indeed, in the lead-up to privatisation this is being done to try to make the industry more attractive for sale. It has improved the assessment of the value of the industry and hence the sale prospects. That is exactly what might be expected in the future when a private sector owner tries to maximise the return on his investment.
Unfortunately, as we are now all aware, that more intensive period of use has raised fresh fears about safety following an emergency shutdown at Heysham 2 and consequent investigations at Torness and elsewhere. There can be no doubt that if those investigations suggest that, on safety grounds, those stations ought not to be refuelled while in use, all the financial calculations about the sale will be thrown into question. Precisely for that reason, the sale prospectus must include much more detail about those matters if investors are to stand any chance of knowing the implications and risks of the investment that, for financial reasons, the Government desperately need.
There is another risk that the Government need to set out and explore—the regulatory risk. Some of those who gave evidence to the Select Committee seemed to suggest


that assurances should be given that no risk could arise to change the operating conditions for the privatised company. Frankly, only a fool would give such assurances and only a fool would believe them.
The regulator himself pointed out that, if he is asked by other generators to review such issues as British Energy's direct access to the market on a preferential basis, he will have to do so. That, too, would change all the financial calculations about the sale. Those who think that it is unlikely to happen, should recall how the market for gas was changed in a way that was not anticipated when the sale was made. The nearer we get to the privatisation date, the more we are on shifting sands.
In the White Paper leading up to the privatisation, the Government said that the nuclear element of the fossil fuel levy would be abolished. It seems that that is no longer the case. It is hard to see anything constant about the privatisation, other than the Government's dogmatic determination to carry it through, irrespective of whether it makes sense, the cost to the taxpayer, the implications for safety and its long-term impact.
There is a merciless logic that casts doubt on the Government's entire case. The wastes and residues from the stations create a responsibility that will last for probably more than 100 years. As James Capel, the city analysts, said in evidence to the Select Committee, such responsibilities are matters for Government. If only by default, liabilities are likely to fall on the Government of the day.
As the Minister says, it would be intolerable for responsibility for liabilities to be separated from the assets from which they arise. As the liabilities are inherently likely to end up with Government, the assets should stay with Government. That simple fact sums up the scale of the gamble on which the Government have embarked. They intend to set up a private company which, in its early years, will accrue substantial revenues on an investment that that company has not made, but was made by the taxpayer. Over the years, the revenues will gradually decline and ultimately cease as the stations reach the end of their usable lives, but there will remain for between 70 and 130 years huge liabilities to be met and, with them, huge costs.
The Government expect that the private sector will continue to meet these costs long after it has ceased to receive any revenues. Even Alice would have thought that she was not in wonderland, but in nightmare land, given such a prospect.
The privatisation is folly of a high order. Even for this Government, it represents unprecedented incompetence and irresponsibility—I say that in the aftermath of the BSE episode. The Government know it, we know it and the industry knows it. Sooner or later, the full consequences of the folly will be borne in on the public, who will be left to shoulder the burdens that the Government are foisting on to future generations. By then, it will be too late to call a halt. Let the House call a halt today.

The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'congratulates the Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear companies which, with the advent of competition in the electricity market and the prospect of privatisation, have transformed their performance

over the past six years; congratulates the Government on the planned sale of the nuclear power stations of Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear, noting that it is consistent with existing legislation, will fully preserve the vigour of the safety and environmental regulatory system, will benefit the taxpayer through the transfer of liabilities to the private sector and the receipt of sale proceeds and will provide appropriate transparency about liabilities and how they will be met; notes that the Government intend to give a considered response to the Trade and Industry Committee within the normal timescale; and notes that the Opposition have opposed every privatisation, despite the proven benefits which have been recognised by a growing number of countries throughout the world.'.
I begin by paying tribute in the House to the late John Collier, who was the chairman of Nuclear Electric. It is due to a great extent to John's skill, leadership and hard work that the nuclear power industry is now preparing for privatisation. He is remembered with great respect and affection by everybody who knew him, in all parts of the House.
Let me now turn to the speech that we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)—a speech of doom, gloom and scaremongering, even by her standards. For once I can say something positive about the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who until recently has refrained from trying to score cheap party political points about safety. I am sorry that he failed to persuade his right hon. Friend to follow the same route. [Interruption.] I am sure that the right hon. Lady does not realise how responsibly her hon. Friend has behaved with regard to safety. I am only sorry that she did not follow his good example.

Mrs. Beckett: rose——

Mr. Eggar: Of course I will give way to the right hon. Lady, if she wishes to contradict her hon. Friend.

Mrs. Beckett: I do not wish to contradict my hon. Friend; it is the Minister on whose remarks I want to comment. He said that it would be irresponsible to draw attention to some of the safety consequences of the problems that are being seen in the nuclear industry. I cannot believe that he does not know what I know: that the industry is seriously alarmed about some of the prospects and some of the consequences of the current investigation of developments in the industry.
The Minister has come to the House before—while the report on Heysham was on his desk—and said that it would be wrong for anyone to raise safety issues and anxieties about the future operation of the industry. All the issues are difficult; all are now being assessed. It would be grossly irresponsible for any hon. Member, even a Conservative Member, not to raise some of them in a debate of this nature.

Mr. Eggar: I suggest that what is entirely inappropriate is for such issues to be raised in the way in which the right hon. Lady raised them. Her speech was no more than pure scaremongering from beginning to end.

Mrs. Beckett: We shall see.

Mr. Eggar: There we are. The right hon. Lady, from a sedentary position, says, "We shall see." What is that except scaremongering?
The fact is that the nuclear installations inspectorate is an independent body, which is overseen by the Health and Safety Commission. The right hon. Lady seems to forget that the commission includes three representatives from the trade unions. To suggest for a moment that its members would be prepared to go along with a lowering of safety standards is offensive to them; moreover, it entirely fails to recognise the high and independent standards set by both the commission and the NII.
If the right hon. Lady had bothered to read the NII' s evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee, from whose report she quoted extensively, she would know that the NII said that, if shareholder pressure resulted in stronger, more focused management, it would expect to see a safety benefit from privatisation. The Health and Safety Executive has confirmed that relicensing the affected nuclear power stations will ensure that there is no reduction in nuclear safety as a result of restructuring and privatisation. After an exhaustive inquiry, the Trade and Industry Select Committee concluded:
privatisation need not result in any reduction in nuclear safety".
Let me repeat the Government's policy once more. Safety is and will remain paramount for both the Government and the industry, and the same rigorous regulatory regime will continue to apply to both public and private-sector operators.

Mr. Michael Clapham: The Minister mentioned the Health and Safety Executive. He will be aware that a letter leaked last week showed that the cut in the HSE's budget was compromising safety, because in future it would not have enough inspectors to ensure compliance. That will clearly apply to the nuclear industry.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is deducing the position from a draft letter which has never been sent. In any case, I refer him to the White Paper, and to the evidence that I gave to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which he is a member. I made it absolutely clear that the Government will ensure that there are adequate resources for the NH to make certain that it can carry out its responsibilities. I repeat, as I have done many times on the Floor of the House, that the safety of the nuclear industry is paramount, whether it is in the public or the private sector, and nothing will deter us from ensuring that.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the probability that the expected life of the Magnox stations will be extended beyond previous expectations? Are we quite sure—the answer may be yes—that the NH has sufficient resources to cover the extended life of the Magnox stations?

Mr. Eggar: If additional resources are necessary to take account of that eventuality if it were to happen, they would have to be made available. The Government said clearly in the White Paper that we will not in any way imperil safety standards, and we will stick with that.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I am only at the beginning of my speech, and I have been absolutely categorical on this issue, in front of the Select Committee and on the Floor of the House, time and again.

Mr. Williams: The Minister mentioned safety. On 29 January, in Heysham, there was a problem with a fuel rod, which got stuck when it was being lowered. That caused an emergency shutdown that lasted 18 days. That has potentially serious commercial implications for the future of the HER programme. Why did not the Government go public immediately on that emergency shutdown? The first we heard of it was six or seven weeks later.

Mr. Eggar: From memory—

Mr. Adam Ingram: From memory?

Mr. Eggar: Yes, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way.
The automatic shutdown mechanism, which is installed for safety purposes, immediately closed down the station. The station manager decided, entirely on his own discretion, that he would stop on-load refuelling. Following normal practice, that incident was disclosed in the site newspaper. which is widely distributed, at the beginning of February—again, I say that from memory. An entirely misleading and over-emotional article appeared on the front page ofThe Guardian—

Dr. Spink: Oh, well.

Mr. Eggar: Absolutely.
That article referred to meltdown and such possibilities, which was entirely bogus, as anybody who knows the nuclear industry is aware. Nuclear Electric then decided that it would raise the issues with Scottish Nuclear, which decided, for safety reasons—because of the similar design at Torness—not to continue, for the moment, with the on-load refuelling.
The company is now examining those issues and has behaved entirely responsibly. By its actions, it has shown that it will not take any risks with safety of any kind whatever. So, far from raising safety fears, the performance of Nuclear Electric has reinforced the importance that it attaches to the highest possible safety standards in the nuclear industry.

Mr. Tom King: Are not the comments by Opposition Members—which question the standard of safety observance in the industry—an insult to the people working in the industry? I speak on behalf of my constituents at Hinckley Point, whose families and children live near the stations, and I draw attention to the outstanding safety achievement of those two stations.
The role of the nuclear installations inspectorate is obviously extremely important, and I am grateful to the Minister for the firm stand that he has always taken in insisting on the highest levels of safety. However, does he agree that those standards are also due to the cool character and the conscientious co-operation of all those who work in the industry?

Mr. Eggar: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend.

Mrs. Beckett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer my right hon. Friend before giving way to the right hon. Lady.
As I say, my right hon. Friend is correct. It is outrageous to suggest that the staff of either Scottish Nuclear or Nuclear Electric would imperil their own safety or that of their families or workmates. I have met many representatives of the work force of both those companies, and I have met the trade unions that represent them. They would see as a considerable slur on them and on their professionalism any suggestion of them risking safety standards.
Quite apart from anything else, the costs in terms of the future profitability of the company and its privatisation of any risk being taken with safety far outweigh any potential benefits. In any case, as my right hon. Friend right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has said, the nuclear installations inspectorate ensures the highest possible standards.
If the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) wishes to intervene for a second time, I shall give way to her.

Mrs. Beckett: I am extraordinarily grateful to the Minister. That was an interesting little duet between him and the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), but, of course, it bore no relationship whatever to what I said. I did not cast a slur on the workers in the industry, nor did I suggest that they would be neglectful of safety, and it is disgraceful to say that I did.
With respect, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater was not here for most of my speech, and does not know what I said. I do not wish to be unkind to the right hon. Gentleman and, in fairness, he feels entitled to take the Minister's observations as a reflection of what I said, but he would be unwise to do that.
I said that there were concerns that the stations had been run for longer than would be normal for their design capacity, and that that was done under pressure to maximise proceeds in the run-up to privatisation. The Minister spoke about safety issues that I did not raise. The industry is concerned that this over-running of the stations may have caused problems, which are now being investigated and to which reference has been made. It is in that context that there are concerns about long-term safety. That is not a slur on the people who work in the industry.

Mr. Eggar: This is a long intervention.

Mrs. Beckett: Perhaps the Minister would allow me to finish my point, which I will do any second now.
There was no slur on the workers. They have to deal with the running of the company in the context of the load factors under which they are required to operate the stations.

Mr. Eggar: I did not hear the hon. Lady seek the leave of the House to speak for a second time. She condemned herself out of her own mouth. She effectively said, by implication, that the management of Nuclear Electric and

Scottish Nuclear had decided to run the stations at a level of output that effectively rendered them unsafe. That is what the right hon. Lady said, and I suggest that she studies with great care tomorrow'sHansard.The implication is undoubted, and I hope that she will immediately apologise to the management and the work force in the nuclear industry.
We have differences in the House about the merits or demerits of privatisation of the nuclear industry, but the one issue that should unite us is the common belief in the need to retain the highest safety standards, and the assumption that both management and the work force are determined to do just that.

Ms Joan Walley: rose—

Mr. Martin O'Neill: rose—

Mr. Eggar: I must make some progress. I have been on my feet for 15 minutes and I have been constantly interrupted. However, for old time's sake, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), but I must then be allowed to continue with my speech.

Mr. O'Neill: I shall be brief. I understand that the improved performance of the nuclear industry has been due in large measure to the ability to refuel the rods while keeping the station running. I understand that an inquiry is currently under way. Will the industry and the stations be as attractive to potential investors if that practice is shown to be technically dangerous? Does the Minister not appreciate that the investigative process could undermine the attractiveness of privatisation?

Mr. Eggar: That was a fair question from the hon. Gentleman. I regret that he no longer contributes from the Opposition Front Bench, as he would undoubtedly raise the tone of the debate.
An issue arose with regard to one particular thin stainless steel sleeve in Heysham. Prior to that, some 150 fuel channels had been refuelled without any problems. Also prior to that, there had been on-line refuelling, which is continuing, at low power, at Hinckley Point B and Hunterston B. There have been no safety problems with that.
Safety cases were then established and accepted by the nuclear installations inspectorate with regard to Heysham and Torness. Although a difficulty occurred with one of the fuel channels, some 150 had been refuelled without any problem.
Clearly, both the NII and Nuclear Electric are studying the implications of the difficulty on the one fuel channel, and a case will be made for resumption of on-line refuelling at those two stations if that is felt appropriate, or not if it is not felt appropriate. That must be the sensible way forward. I am given to believe that that is not likely to have a significant effect on the overall commercial performance of Nuclear Electric or British Energy.

Ms Walley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: No, I have been extremely generous with the amount of time that I have given to interventions.
It is fair to turn to the benefits of electricity privatisation, because—

Ms Walley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: —the fact is that the privatisation—

Ms Walley: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it quite clear that he is not giving way. Therefore, the hon. Lady should not persist.

Mr. Eggar: The benefits of electricity privatisation are absolutely clear: costs have been reduced, efficiencies introduced and investment in infrastructure secured. In real terms, domestic electricity prices throughout the United Kingdom have fallen by 7 per cent. and industrial prices by 10 per cent. Domestic electricity consumers in England and Wales have benefited from a £50 rebate on their electricity bills this year, and the average electricity domestic consumer in England and Wales is likely to pay about £90 less for electricity this year than two years ago.
The benefits of privatisation have been coming through fast in gas as well, and gas prices have reduced by about 23 per cent. in real terms since privatisation. I am delighted to tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) that, in the south-west, as a result of the introduction of competition, consumers can look forward to a further 15 to 20 per cent. reduction in their bills. Those are the real benefits of privatisations, every one of which the Opposition opposed—led, in the case of electricity, by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
The prospect of privatisation has had beneficial effects on the nuclear power industry. With the incentive of privatisation lying ahead of it, in six short years the nuclear industry has transformed its performance. Nuclear Electric's output has increased by no less than 39 per cent., and productivity per employee has risen by more than 100 per cent. At Scottish Nuclear, output has increased by 38 per cent. and unit costs have fallen by a third. Sizewell B, which is up and running, to date has achieved an average load factor of 97 per cent., while it operated continuously in the last quarter of 1995. Those are proven facts. They are solid achievements by the nuclear industry since 1989.
Another benefit that will flow from the privatisation of the nuclear industry is the fact that reductions in the levy and changes to the nuclear energy agreement in Scotland will cut electricity prices for consumers and help to level the playing field for electricity supplies. These are real benefits that will lead to domestic consumers paying less for their electricity from the end of the third quarter of this year. It simply is not true, as the right hon. Lady claimed, that we have abandoned any idea of abolishing the levy in England and Wales.
The right hon. Lady made much of the question of liabilities. She yet again raised the old chestnut of whether the liabilities will follow the assets. Either she is not doing her homework, or she is deaf, or she is simply being mischievous. I have made the position absolutely clear on a number of occasions.
For example, in the White Paper last May, I made it clear that we expected nuclear liabilities to follow their associated assets into both the public and private sectors. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) was present when I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in November 1995 and again made it clear that liabilities would follow assets. I repeat again, for the avoidance of doubt, that liabilities will follow assets. It is as simple as that.

Mrs. Beckett: All of them?

Mr. Eggar: The right hon. Lady, presumably wishing to speak for a third time—this time from a sedentary position—asked whether all the liabilities would follow the assets. I say to her again, as I have said consistently over a period, that the assets that go into the private sector will be followed by their attendant liabilities. It would be quite wrong for the liabilities to remain in the public sector while the assets went into the private sector. The Government's position on that is absolutely clear.

Mr. Ken Purchase: I have a simple question. What is the value of the undiscounted liabilities that the Minister feels should follow the assets into the private sector?

Mr. Eggar: That will become absolutely clear in the documentation that will be associated with the sale of the nuclear industry. Work on it is continuing. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade yesterday announced the terms of the segregated funds. As the hon. Gentleman also knows, that deals with the specific issue of the sites that will be decommissioned, and any on-site fuel storage costs associated with that.
There will be a £230 million up-front endowment, which will be paid by British Energy into the segregated fund. Subsequently, there will be annual payments. The annual payments and the size of the fund will be investigated and considered on a five-yearly basis, subject, of course, to independent advice from independent actuaries. The fund will be in a trust form, and independent trustees will be responsible for maintaining the appropriateness of the fund.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to press on.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South referred yet again to that old canard, the figures in the Red Book. She should know that she is, of course, completely misconstruing them. We assumed in the previous years that the nuclear industry would remain in the public sector, and therefore, between the two years, made the assumption in the Red Book that a number of assets would go into the private sector. The result of privatisation is that significant potential and actual liabilities will move from the public sector to the private sector, along with the assets that are being transferred. In addition, of course, the Exchequer will benefit from the proceeds of the privatisation.
The right hon. Lady was looking at one part of the public accounts without taking any account of the compensating advantages—the removal of liabilities and


the receipt of capital assets. I suspect that even a young lady with a pass in maths GCSE would be able to understand that, if one looks only at one side of the figures, one is bound to misconstrue the situation. It surprises me that the right hon. Lady got it wrong, not only once but repeatedly. To repeat it again on the Floor of the House seems to show a worrying level of ignorance and a lack of homework.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South also decided to re-run the issue of insurance arrangements. Let us be clear about the position. Unlike other comparable industries, either in the public or private sector, nuclear operators are subject to strict and clearly channelled liability. That is because such liability gives certainty to potential claimants and reinforces the operator's responsibility for safe operation of the plant. The nuclear industry is unique—correctly so, in my view—in the way in which strict liabilities apply.
The United Kingdom is also party to the Paris and Brussels conventions on civil nuclear liabilities. Under those international conventions, an operator of a nuclear site, regardless of whether it is in the public or the private sector, is required to have approved cover for nuclear liability of £140 million. For claims over that limit, public funds may be made available, up to a total of £280 million. Some of those funds can be claimed back from other signatories to the Brussels convention, on the assumption that they are ever needed.
Those arrangements are a sensible way in which to deal with low probability events, and in line with the treatment of such nuclear events in other industrialised countries. I other words, we recognise that particular issues appertain to the nuclear industry. International conventions have been signed, and we are abiding by them because we think that it is in the interests of the nuclear industry, regardless of whether it is in the public or the private sector, and in the interests of individual citizens in the UK.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister has described the international agreements. How appropriate does he think such agreements are to privatisation, given that other industries have private insurance cover for much larger sums?

Mr. Eggar: I am sorry, I thought that I had made myself clear. There is a difference between the nuclear industry and other industries because of the very strict and clearly channelled liability that lies almost uniquely on nuclear operators. It is therefore in a different category in any case.
The hon. Gentleman appears not to have recognised another factor. In many of the other countries that are signatories to those conventions, there are privately owned nuclear companies. The conventions apply to those companies, which are already privately owned, as they will apply to the privatised British Energy. In the European context, private ownership of the nuclear energy industry is not unique, and the conventions already cover a number of private sector operators in other countries.
The truth is that the right hon. Member for Derby, South, for all her criticism and scaremongering, brushed aside the most critical question, which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink). He asked what the Labour party would do about the nuclear industry once it was privatised, and the right hon. Lady

replied, "Nothing." In other words, the Labour party's commitment on the nuclear industry is the same as its commitment on every other privatisation proposal that the Government have made.
Labour has opposed every privatisation. Labour Members have mocked the benefits that have clearly come from privatisation, but they are not prepared to back their opposition. If, God forbid, Labour Members ever sat on the Government Benches, the right hon. Member for Derby, South would be prepared to preside over a privatised nuclear industry, just as we are prepared to put the nuclear industry into the private sector. She does not even have the conviction of the rhetoric with which she addressed the House a mere 20 minutes ago.

Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend think that a good summary of what he has just said is that Labour says one thing and does another in this matter, as in all others?

Mr. Eggar: That is a perfectly fair summary, although I would go further even than my hon. Friend. Labour Members simply hate privatisation, because they are as anti-enterprise and as anti-success now as they have ever been. They hate privatisation because it denies them the opportunity to meddle with and to add burdens on business. Labour has opposed every privatisation we have made.

Mr. Purchase: Quite right.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman says, "Quite right." In fairness to him, he would be prepared, if he were on the Front Bench, to say that the Labour party would renationalise the nuclear industry.

Mr. Purchase: indicated assent.

Mr. Eggar: Yes, he would. He is a man of conviction and a man with backbone, unlike the right hon. Member for Derby, South, who is quite prepared to make elaborate speeches, but not to back up her words with action.
The Labour party is a member of a unique club—a unique club of two. The new Labour party joins North Korea as the only sensible political movement that is still opposed to privatisation in any form and under any circumstances. The right hon. Lady sets an appalling example for her party.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Minister chastises us by saying that we would not oppose privatisation if we were in government. Will he, however, consider public opinion on the matter? What percentage of the general public support this privatisation?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that consumers who have benefited from privatisation welcome the advantages of it. How many letters has the hon. Gentleman had from constituents complaining about the £50 rebate on their electricity bill? Does he think for a moment that the rebate would have been given had the electricity industry still been owned by the public sector? Quite the reverse. There would been real increases in electricity prices under state ownership over the past five years, just as there were over the preceding 15 to 20 years.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at the time of the privatisation of telephones, electricity and gas, the public would been have broadly against them, but that, if we had a poll now on a renationalisation programme, the public would certainly be with us?

Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the right hon. Member for Derby, South agrees, because she is not prepared to renationalise because she knows that privatisation means benefits for taxpayers and customers, lower prices and better standards of service. That is why I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the motion and in favour of the Government's amendment.

Mr. Ken Purchase: I want to speak not only as a member of the Select Committee that produced the report but because of the absolute importance of the subject—the future of the nuclear industry.
When the Minister chastises the Opposition for not saying that we are immediately willing to renationalise the previously publicly owned utilities, he forgets that the money that was obtained from successive privatisations has been given away. The Government have contrived to give away the receipts from those sales—mainly in tax cuts for their rich friends. Had the Government been prudent, saved the money and invested it wisely, it would have been available to renationalise the utilities that he says we have not given a commitment to renationalise. Of course we have not. We are not stupid. We recognise that we have to have the wherewithal to carry out plans that are important for the country.
It would be prudent for the Government to recognise that there is so much uncertainty about the issue that it is incumbent on them to seek further advice on quantifying many of the things that the Select Committee has brought to notice and that are impenetrable as they stand. An amendment was moved in the Select Committee that suggested that seven of the 17 key recommendations were not properly quantified and should be referred to the Audit Commission for further investigation so that we could have a proper understanding of the value of liabilities before the Government proceeded any further with the auction.
Of course, Conservative members of the Select Committee rejected the amendment for the simple reason that there is an unholy rush to privatise the nuclear industry. It does not seem to matter that, even at the end of March, the industry's inspectorate has not yet completed its work to provide the safety certificates necessary for continued operation. That may be something of a formality, but the purpose of those inspections is to be as sure as one can be in such matters that the industry is fit for its purpose and should be allowed to carry on in the same manner. The Government cannot even wait to find whether those important inspections throw up anything that should be attended to before a decision is taken on privatisation.
It is worth reflecting on the conundrum that confronts us if we try to regard the matter apolitically, in terms of accountancy, value for money and an understanding of what the sale would produce. The Government are

reluctant to quantify the costs and benefits properly and are unable to forecast accurately the likely value of the sale. All sorts of figures have been mentioned, from £2 billion to £3 billion. The inability to express that properly before further action is taken creates a considerable problem. The operating costs and future liabilities are as difficult to define accurately.
We must consider the running costs of caring properly for the nuclear waste that is generated by operation. That is properly regarded as a simple cost of operation and does not need to form a future liability. If we put aside that cost and try to estimate, as the Select Committee tried to, the discounted and undiscounted costs of reprocessing and future liability, we find that it is difficult to make economic sense of the matter.
Between Magnox, advanced gas-cooled and pressurised water reactors, there is a combined undiscounted liability approaching £31.6 billion. Of course, that falls due, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said, over a period of between 70 and 130 years—and even that is difficult to quantify.
It adds a little more point to our debate that we are trying to ensure that proper provision is made, and the industry properly looked after, for generations yet unborn. It has become something of a cliché to talk about our responsibility to future generations, but a special case must be made for the nuclear industry. It is not that our engineers, technicians and scientists are not up to the job. Of course they are; they are world leaders in the technology and have done an excellent job. Our safety record is as good as any in the world and better than most, but that does not alter the fact that a nuclear accident has more potential for destruction than any other sort of mishap that the world has known. There were 20 million dead in the 1939–45 war. [Interruption.]

Ms Walley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I find it offensive that the Government's Front-Bench spokesmen are laughing while we are hearing about the awful consequences of an accident in the nuclear industry. The Minister should take account of what is being said.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I do not think that it has reached the point where it has become a matter for the Chair to intervene.

Dr. Spink: rose—.

Mr. Purchase: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Spink: I presume that the hon. Gentleman believes in the long-term future of our nuclear industry. Does he accept that he is talking about hypothetical risks and not ones that he expects to come to fruition?

Mr. Purchase: Of course they are hypothetical. In trying to forecast outcomes, one must have a hypothesis, as the learned doctor would no doubt say in another arena. Hypotheses are important.
There was a hypothesis in 1936 and 1937 that we would not have a war with Germany. That led to 20 million people being killed. That hypothesis proved to be incorrect. We must recognise that the potential consequences of mistakes


and accidents in the nuclear industry are more horrific even than those of the war, including the holocaust. I do not mean to be a prophet of doom. We need not face that scenario. Our excellent safety record is worth hanging on to. A famous ex-Prime Minister once said, "If it ain't bust, don't fix it." We have an industry that is run as well as any nuclear industry in the world.

Mr. Gallie: I agree. Is it not right that we should share our expertise with the world? Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that we have the expertise to help other countries where safety limits and expectations are not the same as ours? By privatisation, which would release our resources, we could assist with the safety of the nuclear industry all over the world.

Mr. Purchase: Of course the industry already exports its services, and has an income of hundreds of millions of pounds every year. There is another whole debate about spreading nuclear technology, given the scenarios that I painted a moment or two ago. There is no question but that the talks on limitations on nuclear arms were an important part of the world peace process. It was recognised then that the non-proliferation treaties were an integral and essential part of that process.
I say the same about nuclear technology for the generation of energy. We must be exceedingly careful, and we must recall that the original purpose of the Magnox development—perhaps it is wrong to say its original purpose, but certainly one of its uses—was the production of nuclear materials for bombs. Are we confident that that technology is absolutely safe in any part of the world to which we care to export it?
In some places there are equally advanced or advancing nations with which we can share not only access to nuclear technology and the associated generative processes but the control and safety aspects. If one thing worries me about technology and scientific advance, it is not the way in which they can help humanity—that is beyond doubt—but the fact that sometimes our ability to produce things outstrips our civilisation's ability to control them.
Unfortunately, that can be said about the history of the world in terms of scientific endeavour. We now have in our hands a most powerful instrument, which can be used for good or evil. I can tell the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) that we already trade in the nuclear industry, and we did not have to privatise it to do so—but that the important thing is to trade safely, with proper safeguards to control nuclear power worldwide.
I must return to the financial aspect of the matter. It could be asked, "If the liability is so great, would it not be better to shuffle it off into the private sector?" For a moment, if one does not reflect too hard, that is an attractive proposition. It would seem that an incoming Labour Government would avoid many of the costs associated with the industry. But the truth would be somewhat different.
If the industry were sold, albeit at a knock-down price that did not even cover the cost of building Sizewell B, it would be obliged to return a profit to its shareholders and make a return on capital employed. The industry would find ways to do that, and to add value to its product.
The Select Committee report contains a strong plea that the inspectorate should not be weakened in any way, that reporting should take place at board level and that the

reports should be carried through by an inspectorate dedicated to that purpose. We made it clear that the purpose is to ensure that incentives in the industry are not inappropriate.
For example, if we put performance targets in front of people, which they have to achieve to improve their earnings capacity, there is every likelihood that they will find ways and means to do that, both to satisfy their own reasonable demands for better wages and salaries and to meet the company's demands to keep its shareholders happy and to make a proper return on capital employed. There is no point in a company having capital if the capital does not produce something for it.
We must recognise that the history of performance-related pay, or piecework—call it what we may—involves cutting corners and finding ways to enhance performance, not always safely. With industry in general, the number of chaps that we see walking about with their middle fingers missing, so they can no longer play the piano, is legendary. That has usually resulted from people cutting corners and putting their fingers in the way of things that their hands should not have been near in the first place.
That is a simple matter compared with what might happen if the nuclear industry found ways of cutting corners. If the selling price is such that it forces the industry to cut corners, we shall all be at risk—and not only in the United Kingdom.
The Select Committee had considerable discussion about insurance, and finally agreed to ask the Government to investigate what level of insurance could be obtained and was appropriate, over the £140 million suggested to us. As the Chernobyl disaster has now racked up costs of something like £400 million-plus, it defies gravity, so to speak, to suggest that the nuclear industry could ever take on sufficient insurance cover to meets its liabilities should the unthinkable happen.
If the industry had to take sufficient insurance to cover all its liabilities, it would be totally unprofitable. In that situation, any sensible organisation would carry its own insurance, and the only organisation big enough to do that in this case is the Government. No other body could carry insurance sufficient to meet the liabilities if there were such an accident, so on that score, too, common sense says that the nuclear industry should remain a public enterprise.
As a public enterprise, that industry has been doing well and making money for the Government, paying £200 million to £300 million over recent years. I do not believe that the productivity gains are due simply to the fact that the Government have put the pressure on and said that they will privatise the industry. There is a natural evolution of productivity gains throughout technological industries. In that sense, the nuclear industry is no different from the Post Office, telecommunications or other areas in which Britain has shown tremendous expertise, moved to the cutting edge of technology and made appropriate savings.
Finally, I come to the idea of maintaining the enterprise within the public sector. I started by saying that the money gained in all the previous privatisations had since been dissipated—in tax cuts, broadly speaking. If tax cuts are the incentive for the Government, they must know that the sale, even if it raises more than £2 billion, will scarcely give them a penny ha'penny in the pound off tax.
Is it really worth putting our consciences and our whole political morality on the line, knowing that risks are involved that have never been seen in the civilised world before? Simply for a penny ha'penny off tax, is it worth rushing into a privatisation that will surely prove one privatisation too many?

Dr. Robert Spink: A privatised nuclear industry will be safer than the current nuclear industry—which I shall explain during my speech. I associate myself with the warm tribute paid to John Hollier by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy. It is always a privilege and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) in debates—even though I disagree with him on this occasion.
We need a balanced energy strategy in this country. Such a strategy must have a nuclear component amounting to 20 or 25 per cent.—that is the medium-term requirement for this country—and I believe that even the Labour party agrees with that sentiment. As evidence of that, I quote the following words:
All forward forecasts for the first quarter of the 21st century indicate a growing role for nuclear power.
Believe it or not, they are the words of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).

Mr. John Battle: That surprises me.

Dr. Spink: Yes, it surprised me too.
In the longer term, I can see a growing need—an expanding need—for nuclear power, along with other forms of alternative power. In fact, I believe that there will be a part to play for new technology and for new nuclear technology. For example, I hope that fusion will come on board, because it will be an inherently safer form of energy generation. However, 10 years ago I thought that I would see it in my lifetime, but I am now beginning to question whether I will.
Today, my first duty is to pay tribute to British engineering. It is as good today as it was when Brunel created his great achievements many years ago. British engineering is world class—in fact, I would go so far as to say that it is world-beating. If hon. Members want evidence of that, they need look no further than Monday of this week, when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade opened Sizewell B.
Sizewell B is now ready and appropriate for sensible privatisation. It is our first pressurised water reactor. It is a wonderful achievement, and it brings great credit not only to our engineering industry but also to our manufacturing and construction industries. It is an unequivocal success story for Nuclear Electric, and a great international advertisement for all our industrial sectors—particularly for engineering, for operational power generation and for architecture. It also brings—and will continue to bring—great credit to our environmental care strategy.
The Sizewell B performance statistics are remarkable. Since coming into full commercial operation in September 1995, it has achieved an average load factor of 97 per cent.,

and has achieved 173 days of continuous, safe and efficient power generation. In so doing, it has displaced environmentally more damaging forms of power generation—something of which we should all be proud. However, the British character is that we do not easily celebrate our successes; in fact, we more readily criticise, belittle and deprecate our culture and achievements—that is particularly true of Members on the Opposition Benches.
I hope that this afternoon I have been able to redress that balance a little for Sizewell B. I hope that all hon. Members will join today in sending a message of congratulations and thanks to those who built Sizewell B, to those who commissioned it and to those who are now operating it. I look forward to a future decision—which I think will be easier once privatisation is bedded in; that is one of the advantages of privatisation—to build another pressurised water reactor. This decision will need to be taken in order to maintain the balanced energy strategy to which I referred earlier.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the first public utterance that British Energy made was to disavow any possibility of building any more nuclear power stations in the foreseeable future? Where has the hon. Gentleman been sleeping these past few months?

Dr. Spink: I declare an interest at this stage: I had lunch with the new chairman of British Energy, and he told me that, while there is no decision at the moment—because of the corporate structure development—to go forward with another PWR, he is not discounting the possibility of going forward with a new decision in the future. In fact, I think that most hon. Members received a letter from him yesterday explaining just that. It is in the national interest to have a balanced energy strategy with a 20 to 25 per cent. nuclear component. I do not see any hon. Members jumping to their feet to disavow that.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: If it is in the national interest to have that 20 per cent. nuclear energy component—I do not agree with it—the way to do it is to keep the nuclear industry in the public sector. That is the only way to retain that percentage.

Dr. Spink: I take a different view. As I have already said, I believe that the decision to build a second pressurised water reactor will be more easily taken once privatisation is bedded in—but I shall not repeat myself. It will become clearer, once the new privatised corporate structures are in place, how the balance can be struck rationally between the environmental, economic and operational considerations in the light of the prevailing financial, commercial and market circumstances, not to mention the technological developments I mentioned.
I am reasonably sanguine about the lack of a decision now to build a future PWR, but I do not want to see this country lose its expertise and its capability in this area. This country has excellent expertise—I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with that—and excellent capability to project-manage effectively and efficiently to build new major nuclear power plants. We have the expertise to do so within very strict time, cost and technical limits—and to do so successfully.
Perhaps this would be a good time to return to and to review the benefits of sensible, appropriate and rational privatisation. Privatisation offers many benefits


which were set out in the White Paper, so I shall not repeat them all. I believe that the key benefit is that privatisation would impart to the nuclear industry the ability to make decisions to benefit the industry. One of the key things that will benefit the industry is a strong safety record in the future, as it has had in the past.
Privatisation—as with British Airways—will see the nuclear industry build on and improve its excellent safety and environmental record. To be commercially successful, the nuclear industry will have to be clean, careful and responsible—and I trust it to be just that.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Spink: I shall give way in a moment.
British Airways, in the private sector, has become more safe, not less so. A number of hon. Members raised concerns before the privatisation of British Airways—there was talk about planes falling out of the sky. The nuclear industry would also become more safe, not less so, because it is in its interests to do so. The crash of a plane is just as catastrophic for the people who are in the plane as the crash of a nuclear power station.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman's comments are so bizarre that someone ought to intervene and say something, instead of laughing at him from a sedentary position. Is he seriously drawing a comparison between the safety implications of privatising an airline, in which the same staff stay in place, and the safety implications of privatising the nuclear industry? All available evidence shows us that already the pool of expertise that has been built up in that industry is breaking up, precisely because we will not be building new nuclear power stations in the future.

Dr. Spink: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should resort to being discourteous to me—there is no room in the debate for that. This is a technical debate, and we may disagree, but there is no point in the hon. Gentleman being discourteous to me. Does he not understand that bodies as diverse as the Health and Safety Commission and Greenpeace have said that privatisation does not mean that corners will be cut in safety?
I also welcome—and the hon. Gentleman should welcome—the fact that the Trade and Industry Select Committee, several of whose members I see on the Opposition Benches, said:
privatisation … need not result in any reduction in nuclear safety".
That is an unequivocal fact. Has the hon. Gentleman not taken the trouble to brief himself in the Library and bring himself up to date with those matters?

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has just come in. He has not listened to the debate, and may not have heard some of the comments about safety.
Does my hon. Friend accept that, as I believe, it is fair to return to comments made by Opposition Members when we were discussing the privatisation of British Airways to make comparisons simply to emphasise the fact that scaremongering about safety then had no basis in truth, and that that is the position now?

Dr. Spink: Yes; and of course I accept that a nuclear power station and an aeroplane have an entirely different

scale of risk, but, as I said when I drew the simile, it is as catastrophic to die because of a safety problem on an aeroplane on which one is a passenger as for any other reason.
I believe that British Energy is committed to improving safety performance standards.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Spink: I must crack on a little. I have taken an awful lot of interventions.

Mr. Home Robertson: You are cracking up.

Dr. Spink: Perhaps I will give way to you later if you will let me make progress.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is addressing me always? A few odd "yous" are floating about, which do not really have a proper place.

Dr. Spink: I am still a very junior Member, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, but learning fast. Thank you for that.
British Energy is committed to improving safety performance and safety standards; it has said so. I also understand that the nuclear installations inspectorate, which would not be weakened, and the newly privatised nuclear industry, would enjoy a more transparent arm's-length relationship than they did when they were both effectively together in the public sector. That may be a healthier, more positive relationship. That is a significant advantage, which has not been spotted or spoken of—at least not by the Select Committee.
As British Airways has cogently demonstrated, profit and safety are not mutually exclusive. With regret and sadness rather than anger, I deplore the fact that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) sought to scaremonger on the safety issue, but her words will not wash. They stand exposed as simply political rhetoric, and she will rightly be condemned by management and workers in the nuclear industry. I know the hon. Lady to be a decent lady, and I feel that she will want to apologise when she reads her words tomorrow in Hansard.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Spink: In a moment.
As I said, privatisation brings many benefits; I shall list them and then give way. First, it enables nuclear generators to raise capital and establish rational investment programmes, reflecting the market and commercial circumstances in which they will operate. It brings increased competition and downward price pressure to the electricity market. My right hon. Friend the Minister cited many fine examples of price reductions that my constituents and the constituents of Labour Members have enjoyed as a result of the privatisation of gas, electricity, British Telecom and so on.
Another benefit will be that the nuclear industry will be able to compete successfully abroad, as British Gas does.

Mr. Battle: Regarding the benefits to consumers in electricity prices, will the privatised British Energy company receive preferential treatment into the grid and the pool?

Dr. Spink: Those are detailed matters, on which I am not briefed now, and I should not like to chance my arm in this debate. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy has heard the question, and will discuss the subject when he replies.

Mr. Purchase: rose—

Dr. Spink: Let me finish describing the benefits, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have not received any brief on this subject from the Conservative research office or anyone else. These are my personal thoughts on privatisation, so let me finish.

Mr. Purchase: rose—

Dr. Spink: Let me finish listing the benefits.
There will be benefits for the taxpayer, and therefore for the economy and the national interest. Those benefits come by many routes—not least by removing nuclear liabilities and subsidies and by giving a level playing field to the nuclear industry, helping us to achieve the greater goal of making Britain the enterprise centre of Europe.
The decision to privatise must be placed in that context, because it will raise money for the Exchequer instead of taking money from it. As previous privatisations have done, it will enable Britain to generate more wealth. Only by generating more wealth can we care better for vulnerable people, pay better pensions, make necessary investments in health and education, and care better for our environment. We all know that a rich country is generally a cleaner country. Those benefits are not inconsequential or insubstantial.
My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) is not in the Chamber, but I am sure that he would welcome the fact that the workers will have the opportunity to take a direct stake in their future. That is another benefit. From what I heard of my hon. Friend's stakeholder Adjournment debate on 19 March 1996—an excellent debate, which I recommend all hon. Members to read—I judge that he will regard privatisation as the real way to give workers and the people of this country a genuine stake in their society.
I shall now discuss the Magnox reactors, but I give way first to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase).

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Speaker has expressed from time to time the hope that, in these limited three-hour debates, speeches are not excessively long.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not think that, by any standards, the length of the present speech could be

described as excessive, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point that this is a half-day debate, and I am sure that all hon. Members will bear that in mind.

Mr. Spink: With that in mind, I give way to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, and ask him to be brief.

Mr. Purchase: I will be expeditious. [Laughter] If it is in order to be—

Madam Deputy Speaker: The onus is on the hon. Gentleman to be brief.

Mr. Purchase: I shall try to be helpful and to fill a gap in the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the detail. Is he not aware that the present arrangement is that the nuclear industry supplies 20 per cent. of base load, and that that is not intended to change? Is it not unique for anyone to be guaranteed anything in a free market, and does it not shoot a hole in his arguments about competition?

Dr. Spink: Of course I am aware of that fact. I am not aware of the precise arrangements that will be written into the privatisation documents. I should not like to pretend that I know something that I do not. I do not know, and no Opposition Member knows, what the detail will be.
Magnox reactors are central to the privatisation debate. There will be a complete split between Nuclear Electric and Magnox Electric on 31 March, when the new companies are vested. Magnox Electric will comprise six operating stations, which will produce about 8 per cent. of the electricity in England and Wales. We all know that three Magnox stations have been shut down. The company will transfer to British Nuclear Fuels Plc once British Energy is privatised. I believe that that is consistent with the conclusions of the Trade and Industry Select Committee inquiry, as the Committee found that privatisation must be considered in the context of what happens to Magnox reactors.
Obviously, it is in the national interest for Magnox reactors to continue to generate while it is safe and economic for them to do so. If they were replaced early, new capacity would need to be created to fill the gap. That is common sense. That would have an impact on the environment in the building, commissioning, operating and any eventual decommissioning of that new capacity. There would also be inevitable capital and operating cost implications and implications for the competitiveness of our electricity generating industry, and therefore that of many other industries.
The impact on our economy cannot be denied. We cannot divorce the decisions regarding Magnox plant life, for example, from the general performance of our economy and our ability to care for the environment. Last week, the Leader of the Opposition said that politicians must be tough enough to take the hard, but responsible, decisions. I wonder whether he will act upon his fine words: I suspect that his hon. Friends would not allow him to, so the answer is no.
Having dealt with the macro-economics of Magnox, I turn now to the micro-economics. Magnox reactors generate electricity at a marginal cost of 1.4p per unit. That is a low figure, because the capital costs have been spent and the decommissioning costs are unavoidable,


irrespective of when the reactors are finally shut down. The 1.4p unit cost delivers a very good profit margin, as the electricity is sold from the station at 2.5p per unit.
Therefore, closing the Magnox reactors early would not only bring an increased environmental threat and possibly a greater safety risk, but would also cost the country several hundred million pounds. There is no environmental or economic justification for such a decision. The final decision to shut down the Magnox reactors must be taken entirely according to safe operating considerations. That fact is absolutely clear, and I know that the Minister will confirm it.
A few months ago, I spoke about the waste management and decommissioning activities of British Nuclear Fuels plc, about its strength, its excellent management team and work force, its dedication to responsible operations, and of course its considerable foreign earnings, which are very important. I shall not reiterate those points today.
However, I note that the Opposition refused, in reply to my earlier intervention, to pledge to renationalise the nuclear power industry. The people of this country are not stupid: they know that the Opposition have opposed every major privatisation, and that, in every case, they have later conceded that those privatisations are irreversible. On balance, the Opposition now agree that those privatisations are good for the previously nationalised industries and for Britain. Opposition Members say one thing and do another.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: One of the first political campaigns in which I was involved—not as a politician, but as someone concerned about the environment—opposed the building of a nuclear power station in Cornwall. During that campaign, we argued frequently that nuclear power was an uneconomic proposition. We put that argument some 17 or 18 years ago, and now even the Government have been forced to acknowledge that we were right: the sums that were presented did not add up. Listening to the Minister's comments about privatisation and the sums it involves, I have a feeling of deja vu: once again, the Government are offering figures that simply do not add up.
The Liberal Democrats, unlike the Labour party, have not opposed every privatisation measure. We supported privatisation when we believed that it was in the public interest and, when we believed that a different form of privatisation would be more appropriate, we argued against the form rather than the principle. However, in this case I believe that both the form and the principle are wrong. The Government have made a gross misjudgment and, if they live long enough, they may regret it—although, looking at the current political situation, I rather doubt that this Government will have to deal with the problems.
Conservative Members have argued that the figures will stand up, that they have worked through their plans and that they know what direction privatisation will take. The truth is that, so far, the privatisation process has been marked by confusion, chaos and inconsistency. There has been ill-hidden conflict with British Energy about the scale of liabilities that should follow assets into the private sector, the European Commission is investigating whether

illegal state aid may be involved in the sale, and the recent Trade and Industry Select Committee report contains serious criticism of the Government's plans.
Perhaps we should expect no better from a Government that have tried to move along the privatisation with the minimum of debate and little parliamentary scrutiny. Quite frankly, it is an insult to our democratic system. The controversy and the secrecy surrounding the proposed privatisation stem directly from the Government's single-minded determination—flying in the face of caution and common sense—to privatise the profitable parts of the industry while leaving the liabilities in the public sector. The Minister's comments do not convince me—or the general public—otherwise. Taxpayers in general are expected once again to subsidise the profits of a few.
The recent Trade and Industry Select Committee inquiry into nuclear privatisation expressed some very clear concerns, and its report makes a series of recommendations designed to safeguard taxpayers' interests. Although it does not say so, the recommendations imply further costs, which raise further questions about the viability of the privatisation proposals. The fact that the report has scarcely been acknowledged, let alone received a reply—that was true also of the Minister's comments this afternoon—will not surprise anyone who has been following the Government's confusion as they struggle to privatise the industry.
The Government now know what they always refused to admit: the nuclear industry is economically unviable. It cannot compete in the open market with other forms of power generation, despite being touted previously as a source of cheap power for the future. Even the Government admit that new nuclear power stations will not be built—at least as things stand currently—because they cannot compete in the marketplace with other forms of power generation.
The Government's White Paper concedes that no new nuclear power stations will be built without Government subsidy—in other words, the private sector will not build new nuclear power stations. I believe that everything that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) said on that subject—as well as most of his other remarks—was wrong. The Minister and the Government have conceded the point in their publications. Nuclear Electric has said that, given current market conditions and according to purely commercial criteria, the building of new nuclear power stations is unviable. It could not be more black and white.
Despite the Conservative Government's earlier misplaced hopes, the nuclear industry has become nothing more than a white elephant. Therefore, the Government have unwillingly moved the goalposts: their approach to the industry is one of damage limitation. Their political goal is to offload the white elephant and quietly run down the industry. The Conservatives do not admit that: openness is not a charge that can be levelled against the Government. In public, Conservative Members espouse the virtues of nuclear power and argue that privatisation can bring benefits to the nuclear industry while relieving the financial burden on the taxpayer. That proposition does not add up: it is blatantly untrue. It seems that the Conservatives do not always say what they mean—and sometimes they do not even mean what they say.
The Government laid the first myth to rest in their White Paper: there will be no new nuclear power stations in the private sector. The industry's future lies in cleaning up the


mess rather than in generating energy. The second myth—that privatising the industry will benefit the taxpayer—can be dispelled just as easily. Conservative Members tell us constantly that the industry's liabilities will no longer fall on the taxpayer.
The potential cost of accidents is enormous, and there are still major questions to be answered on safety and decommissioning. The accident at Chernobyl, in the immediate aftermath alone, cost £200 billion, and long-term costs cannot even be calculated. The private sector incident at Three Mile Island also cost huge amounts of money. Who will be left to pay the price in the event of another accident? The public, of course, will have to pay it.
International conventions, to which the Minister referred earlier, do not make the policy right or justify the Government's continuing with it. They also do not explain the fact that other industries hold public sector liability through insurance schemes that vastly exceeds the amount that the Government will demand of the nuclear industry, despite the fact that the possible costs of a serious nuclear accident would be greater.
Remarkably, the Government appear to be unworried at the prospect of an accident in this country. Threatened cuts to the Health and Safety Commission are putting safety at risk in all privatised industries, and nowhere is that issue more poignantly evident than in the nuclear industry.
The Health and Safety Commission is there not only to investigate large-scale accidents but to make snap inspections in privatised industries, and it has its work cut out for it. Britain's nuclear installations inspectorate has 265 staff to watch over more than 41 reactors. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has more than 3,000 staff to monitor 109 reactors, which is more than four times as many inspectors for each nuclear power station. One must ask whether that already low ratio will decline even more after privatisation.
British Energy must be gratified to know that the Government have such enormous faith in it. The public, however, do not have such faith, and their concerns deserve a better answer from the Government than they have so far received.
There is also chaos and confusion in the Government's policy on decommissioning. We have consistently been told that the private sector will shoulder all liabilities as part of nuclear privatisation. The Minister made that statement again earlier in this debate. The private sector will not shoulder the liability in relation to "the insurance issue", in the Minister's own words, so I am not sure how he can make that argument generally. We have also heard rumblings for some time that British Energy found that premise untenable. Once again, shareholders' concerns are being made paramount.
The Government have U-turned, reversing their policy that liabilities should follow assets by pledging £230 million to help cover liabilities. To all intents and purposes, that is a use of public money, and it has been promised to salvage privatisation and to meet the company's concerns. At the very least, that pledge alters the cost-benefit ratio between potential shareholders in the privatised industry and those who will be selling the industry because it changes the ratio of who pays

for what in the future. That is a scandalous misuse of money, and it appears to confirm again that the Government accept that nuclear privatisation, in any genuine terms, is unviable.
The liabilities issue is, of course, a unique feature in the economics of nuclear power privatisation. The Trade and Industry Select Committee report recognises that and comments particularly on their enormous size, the large element of uncertainty about them and the fact that some liabilities will not fall due for a century or more. The truth is that we do not know the total cost of decommissioning or when or how that process will end. The segregated fund that is supposed to cover the cost of decommissioning, even with the initial £230 million investment, may not pay those costs.
There must be serious doubts whether there will be enough revenue to cover the estimated £8.5 billion cost of decommissioning British Energy's eight power stations when they become obsolete. If there is a shortfall, who will pay for it? The answer is obvious; it will be our children and our children's children. They will be paying for decades for the mismanagement—before and after privatisation—of the nuclear industry.
Who will pay for decommissioning outside the privatised sector of the industry? Where will revenue be found after the profits to be made in the industry are hived off to British Energy's shareholders? In effect, privatisation is diverting future income into the private sector dividends and away from the important task of discharging liabilities, which, in total, remain underfunded.
The British public have already paid for decommissioning through the fossil fuel levy on electricity bills, but that money went to build Sizewell B. The taxpayer is now expected to provide that money again. That cannot be justified. If this privatisation goes ahead, the question is not only whether the Government will return the £1.8 billion that was diverted to Sizewell B, but, even more important, whether £1.8 billion will be realised in the sale—or whether the Government will get less money in the privatisation than the taxpayer has already provided for use in decommissioning.
The cost of decommissioning power stations is only one of several liabilities—the Minister did not mention the other liabilities. Other costs incurred after a power station has closed and revenue ceases include reprocessing of the final core, disposal of intermediate and high-level waste and decommissioning of British Nuclear's facilities. None of those liabilities is properly met by the Government's plans.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the Minister shakes his head at the question of decommissioning, the fact nevertheless remains that, when I was at Sizewell yesterday, many serious members of the nuclear community took the view that the Government were still arguing about decommissioning and were in no mood to accept that they should be responsible.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The real issue is that the Government are cutting off the flow of money to the public which would help to meet those—as yet incalculable—liabilities in the future, and that they are doing so while transferring only limited liabilities to the private sector, without proper guarantees that it will meet even those limited liabilities.
The Government seem happy to rely on the assumption that, many decades hence, a private company will discharge substantial liabilities long after its existing reactors have ceased producing revenue. As the Select Committee report points out, that is not a sufficiently reliable arrangement—but the Minister chose not to respond to the Select Committee's concerns, let alone to the concerns of Opposition parties.
The Government should listen to the weight of public concern on the issue. This privatisation is not good for the taxpayer. It raises enormous and as yet unanswered questions of safety and cost for the general public, and it should be stopped immediately. If the Government had to clear up the mess that they will cause with this privatisation, I am quite convinced that they would live to regret it. It is more likely that others will, sadly, have to tackle those problems.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I immediately take the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) to task on three issues. On the issue of nuclear industry economics, he said that the Government were wrong in the past to expect cheaper units from the nuclear industry. He is wrong. I shall explain later how the price of nuclear energy—the nuclear unit—has been driven down, disproving his point.
The hon. Gentleman has also ignored the important environmental benefit of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is certainly clean and environmentally friendly in respect of air conditions, but that causes a great problem for me and for people in Scotland who work in the power industry. Fifty per cent. of our power generation is tied up in very good nuclear plant. Because of the limitations on gas emissions created some years ago, very strict limits were placed on the amounts of carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide that could be emitted by fossil fuel-powered stations, and those limits made it impractical to use fossil fuel-powered stations to a greater extent. The nuclear industry provides environmental benefits to this country, and that is why nuclear power stations were very much desired back in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, for which we should all be grateful.
The hon. Member for Truro also described the nuclear industry as a white elephant. I do not often quote the words of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) with approval, but I agree far more with his vision of the industry than with the hon. Gentleman's.
The motions on the Order Paper for this debate clearly reflect the differences between the Conservative and Labour parties. The Conservative party's role is to govern; the Labour party's is to form the Opposition. Our motion is positive, appreciative of the industry and forward-looking. The motion moved by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is hesitant and—typically—scaremongering. That is wholly unjustifiable. The right hon. Lady protested her innocence in this respect, but she should read her motion again. It speaks of
potential hazards to the public.

That is scaremongering by any other name. So if she really objects to being accused of scaremongering, she should do the honourable thing and withdraw her motion. It is ill conceived.

Mr. Battle: What is the hon. Gentleman's view of the nuclear installations inspectorate's report on what has happened at Heysham B and Torness?

Mr. Gallie: The nuclear installations inspectorate has done the job it is there to do, in the public sector or the private sector. It has identified a problem that the industry will have to rectify. That is precisely as it should be. I do not honestly understand the point of the hon. Gentleman's intervention—

Mr. Battle: Those two reactors have been shut down—it has actually happened. Is not that a legitimate matter for concern?

Mr. Gallie: Not for the future operation of the nuclear industry. This is a question of confidence. If there is a problem with a reactor and a consequent threat to public safety, it must be shut down. That is the same whether it is owned by the public or the private sector. So I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Mr. Wilson: Try mine. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman expresses his confidence in the privatised nuclear industry in good faith, but I do not see why we should accept his word as opposed to that of Captain Richard Killick, a former nuclear submarine commander and thereafter director of safety at Scottish Nuclear. He has warned in specific terms of the increased dangers and risks inherent in the privatisation of the industry.

Mr. Gallie: I have probably spent more time in the electricity supply industry than Commander Killick has. His opinions differ from those of others in Scottish Nuclear. Why should I believe his opinions as opposed to those of other sages who have been involved in the industry for many years and who are highly competent?
During the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Derby, South, I referred to a report on Hunterston station which shows that safety there has recently been improved beyond recognition.
The Labour motion suggests, as usual, that the Government are rushing ahead. What does the Labour party think the Government should be doing? Whenever the Government take a decision, we are told that they are taking it too hastily. We have been talking about this issue since the mid-1980s. The Labour party is great at talking, but I doubt whether it would ever achieve anything if it got into government—which remains a dubious proposition.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Gallie: I know that other hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), want to speak in this debate, and I do not want to be delayed by too many interventions. The hon. Gentleman, however, is most persuasive.

Mr. Wilson: I do not want to speak in the debate, although I shall certainly listen to it. The hon. Gentleman


has missed out some of the history. When this issue was discussed in the mid-1980s, privatisation was rejected. It has only been reborn as a cynical political device to raise money for tax cuts before a general election. If the hon. Gentleman is going to quote history, let him at least quote it accurately.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman will not allow me the opportunity to do so—he keeps jumping up and down and intervening. I shall deal with all the points to which he refers later in my speech.
The nuclear industry has been built on the successes of private industry—of companies such as Parsons, English Electric, AEI, Clarke Chapman, Babcock, Weir, Howden, and John Brown. I could reel off many more names of great British companies that have helped to build up the nuclear industry; all of them private, all subject to the inspectorate, and all meeting the requirements of the inspectorate and delivering the goods. We should therefore entertain no fears about the privatisation of the industry.
One has only to think of the privatisations of British Airways, British Gas, telephones and electricity to recall that, each time, Opposition Members protested and went in for all kinds of scaremongering. With one or two exceptions—I think of British Gas's performance recently—these privatisations have been successful. Safety has never been compromised, and there have been no problems. Nor will there be in the future, whichever sector the industry belongs to.
The British Government have led the way on privatisation, and other nations around the world have followed suit. We have had the courage to do what we believe in. The Labour party, too, has followed our lead and now acknowledges that there is no way back: nationalisation was bad for this country, and Labour would not reintroduce it. New Labour is right at least about that, although I doubt whether some Opposition Members missing from their places below the Gangway would agree with everything that new Labour stands for.
I am one of the few Members of this House to have worked in a nuclear power station. It was in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). I refer to Hunterston; I have also worked at Torness. At Hunterston, we had Magnox reactors and generating sets which outperformed virtually all the other Magnox stations throughout the 1960s, 1970s and into the 1980s. We in Ayrshire have much to be proud of. The advanced gas-cooled reactors at Hunterston B performed magnificently over the years, as I am sure the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North will agree,

Mr. Wilson: indicated assent.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) said that with privatisation will come pay and productivity schemes. One of my tasks in the electricity supply industry was to introduce pay and productivity schemes in the 1970s and 1980s. They were tools used by the public sector. They are therefore not the preserve of the private sector. The hon. Gentleman's comments bore no relation to the world of work.
My role at Hunterston involved quality assurance. I admit that it was probably one of the worse jobs I have ever had. It buried me in paper, so it could be said that it was

good practice for being a Member of Parliament. Although I did not enjoy my work, it helped me to understand the complexity of safety regulations in the nuclear industry.
This is an extremely complex matter that entails going into every detail. Quite honestly, safety regulations are built into the industry in such a way that they can never be shaken loose. Safety is part of the nuclear culture and is instilled into those who operate the stations now and in future.

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making our case. Everyone I know who works in the industry would agree with everything that he has said in the past few minutes, but would draw a diametrically opposite conclusion. The folly of privatisation is that those who have built up experience in the industry and are steeped in its safety culture are leaving the industry in droves because they see no future in it. What they and Captain Killick see is increasing contractorisation and people coming into the industry without that commendable background in safety to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Gallie: Once again, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman against a background of experience and involvement. I was an employee of the nationalised industry when it was the South of Scotland electricity board. At the time, the employees had the same fears and concerns for safety standards, but when changes were made and the industry entered the private sector, many of the old shackles, particularly on station management, were removed and there was a new freedom within the industry in which individuals could use their skills.
We should take a positive view. Perhaps my views differ from those of people who are currently employed in the nuclear industry, but no one likes change. That is exactly as it was in the old days of the SSEB. However, people absorb change. Things have changed in the electricity industry. The number of employees has decreased because there was little doubt that it was overmanned. That is not quite the same in today's Scottish Nuclear, but there have been changes as we have moved towards privatisation. That is why the performance of the stations has improved so much.
Not only will the employees and the industry benefit—so will the consumers. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North asked me to look back at the lessons of history. One of the lessons I learned at the time was the sadness in the SSEB that the nuclear industry was to be separated from the new Scottish Power. At that time, there was a feeling that it would have been tremendous if the nuclear stations could have been incorporated in the vertically integrated Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric, which no doubt would have had a share. People in the industry at the time regretted that omission. On that basis, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention has been turned on its head.
We should consider the progress that has been made in the nuclear industry. Today we talk about British Energy plc, but it has two components: Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric. Although I recognise the achievements of Nuclear Electric in driving down its unit costs and increasing productivity by 100 per cent., I make no apologies for concentrating on some of the achievements of Scottish Nuclear over the past two or three years.
Two or three years ago, Peter Robson, the director of production at Hunterstofn, told me that his target was to reduce the cost of nuclear generation from 3.2p to 2.2p per unit. I was pretty sceptical about whether that could be achieved, but remarkably, it has been achieved in the run-up to privatisation. It has been achieved against the background of a falling roll, an increase in safety standards and an improvement in plant at Hunterston. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North will confirm that. If he is not prepared to do so, he should look at the report of the operational safety review team of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which demonstrates that safety standards have been improved.
The report states:
Significant improvements have been made in the preservation and material condition of plant systems and equipment through enhanced maintenance and conscientious attention to identifying and correcting equipment problems.
That does not suggest that morale is falling in the work force at Hunterston. The report continues:
Training programmes have been substantially strengthened".
That is a remarkable achievement against a background of falling work rolls. It concludes:
A stronger emphasis on nuclear and industrial safety in the station is evident.
Yet Opposition Members tell us that we should be concerned about safety. I have no such concerns as those in the industry are showing the way forward.
A letter dated 15 May from the British Nuclear Industry Forum states that privatisation will lead to new standards and enhanced concentration on safety matters and export potential can be raised. It stresses the importance of diversity of supply. I have some nagging doubts on the latter point, given that I want to see investment in the nuclear industry. Like the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, I believe that there is potential to expand nuclear generation as we move into the next century. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give us some words of comfort in his reply to the debate.
When I look back at the industry in the public sector, I pay tribute to John Collier and to James Hann, who was part of the nuclear industry for too short a time.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are running out of time, yet we have heard two speeches from Conservative Back-Bench Members that have lasted for more than 20 minutes. As at least four Opposition Members would like to take part in the debate, will you ask the hon. Gentleman to conclude his comments?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have no powers under the Standing Order which can be invoked to shorten speeches. However, I should point out that from the point of view of the Chair, it is possible for the debate to run till 10 o' clock.

Mr. Gallie: I stated earlier, when I gave way to a host of interventions, that I might overrun. I feel passionately about the industry; it is my industry and I want to contribute to it. I am only sorry that so few Members are here today. I would have thought that on an Opposition motion on this issue, the Opposition Benches would have been packed, but that is not the case.
I want to make one point on the old public sector and the decision in the 1970s to develop the advanced gas-cooled reactors. I was great fan of the AGRs, but in retrospect it may have been a wrong decision because they were not commercially viable. I wonder whether a different decision would have been taken had the industry been in the private sector. I remain a fan of AGRs, but we have to face reality. We have not sold them abroad and we have not been able to cash in on them and it is unlikely that any further AGRs will be built. That is reality and we have to face up to it, but would it have been different had the industry been privatised from the start?
I had intended to list a host of reasons why privatisation would have been good for the industry, but I shall refrain from that. My hon. Friends have already made some points, so I shall allow other Members to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I realise that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) faced two problems. First, he was only the second Conservative Member who was prepared to defend the privatisation today; secondly, he has an affection for the industry, which he described as "his" industry. That is understandable—it is the hallmark of many public sector enterprises—but the hon. Gentleman should recognise that, if the motion is defeated, the nuclear industry will no longer be his industry: it will become the possession of those who want and can afford to buy into it.
In investigating the privatisation, the Select Committee dwelt at some length on safety, partly because the Committee was impressed by the testimony of Captain Killick. He was one of those responsible for the dramatic increases in efficiency that took place—consistent with safety—in Scottish Nuclear, and his concern about safety drew the attention of all Committee members to the issue. We also feared that the scheme, which at that time was just an idea, would provide executive perks which might prejudice decisions on critical safety matters.
In the recent past, it has been suggested that decisions relating to the closure of power stations were not made as timeously as they might have been because of wider commercial considerations. I do not make that point lightly; I want to put it on the record. We need assurances about the nuclear installations inspectorate. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) pointed out that the United States had many more inspectors. There is a reason for that: safety has never been an in-house responsibility in the American nuclear industry as it has in the publicly owned British industry, whose different structure led to a different degree of monitoring and regulation. It is wrong to suggest that the United States has more inspectors because the work is more dangerous. We fear that, following a change in the ownership of the nuclear industry and the introduction of different priorities, we may see the collapse of the safety culture that has been at the heart of much of the safety that we have enjoyed.
I do not subscribe to the view that we are just waiting for a Chernobyl to happen, or that Three Mile Island is just around the corner. Such suggestions are irresponsible, degrading and demeaning to people who work in the industry, whose record is as good as those in most other parts of the world—if not better.
One of the problems of privatisation is that the demand for profit will lead to jitteriness at every turn. We have already seen that in relation to the refueling


issue. We know that a 1 per cent. drop in output will result in a loss of £140 million, and that, if we do not see an increase from 74.5 per cent. to 82.5 per cent., the privatised industry will be in very precarious circumstances in its first year of operation.
If I "scaremonger", it will not be about safety: it will be about the commercial concerns of potential investors. If they cannot be guaranteed substantial profits over a short time, they will not be interested. We have observed the fickleness of the British public in this regard: we saw the way in which they went off British Gas in a very short time. Throughout the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has reminded the House from a sedentary position that we have seen the spectre of Yorkshire Water. We know that a number of privatised concerns are not run effectively, and already it is likely that this industry will be sold for less than its asset value. For a time it may well be profitable, but during that time we shall see the building up of share options, the introduction of performance-related pay and all the mistakes that have been made by the other privatised utilities.
At some point, there may well be a case for further investment in nuclear power. I am not one of those who think that the door is locked. I do not believe that anyone need go into the room now, but in four or five years we may have to consider providing additional nuclear capacity in about 10 years to replace the capacity that will be closed down. We shall need that capacity even if we are to have coal-fired power stations, which are by their nature a greater pollutant. If we want a balanced energy policy, and if we want to take advantage of the opportunities open to us, we cannot realistically exclude the nuclear element. The fact is, however, that that element is not an attractive proposition—at least at the present time—to those who will own and run the new British Energy.
Those people are not concerned with national energy matters; they are preoccupied with the need to secure a return for their investors. They are not concerned about the country's energy priorities. Some of us, however, are concerned about those issues and we believe that there should be some planning and foresight. No kind of power station can be built in the short term; it is not possible to sign up exclusively to a single energy source, such as gas, and then a few years later build a couple of coal-fired power stations or a nuclear power station. In about 10 years, there may be a drop in generating capacity, and in about four years we must be capable of making choices. I do not think that a privately owned nuclear generating industry will be interested in a form of energy which—although it may be environmentally attractive, and important in terms of national economic priorities—cannot generate electricity at prices that will attract the market. If national energy priorities are to be met, nuclear energy generation must be publicly owned.
Perhaps the Government are leaving a way out in the form of Magnox Electric. I know that there is a good deal of ambition in British Nuclear Fuels plc and in Magnox Electric, but neither body is integrated at present. I have the impression that they are not even speaking to each other, although they will both be under the BNFL umbrella. I also have the impression that the Government could not give two hoots: suspect that they do not see

this as a means of generating electricity but that, according to the "stand on your head" approach that is a hallmark of nuclear economics, it is better to keep the Magnox stations running because it is more dangerous and expensive for them to lie idle or to be abandoned. They must therefore be sustained until the end of their natural lives, which may last a bit longer than we think. Beyond that, we have no clear indication of what will happen to the Magnox stations. We know that BNFL's main role will be in decommissioning.
As for the long-term prospects for future generating capacity, the Government have made it clear—the Minister certainly made it clear in his evidence to the Select Committee—that they are not interested in a new public sector for nuclear power. I consider the deal to be very short sighted. It is regrettable that the Minister has made little or no attempt today to address any of the recommendations in our report. We are three days away from the vesting date of the new companies, and we were led to believe that a prospectus would appear after 1 April. We were told that there was a good deal of work to be done, but that the Government were confident that that date would be met. I do not think that 6 pm on 26 March, four working days before the end of the month, is too early to expect Ministers to come here and tell us how they would deal with the questions that we have put to them.
The Government have signally failed on every issue. Yesterday's statement served only to confuse the situation. We are not sure what the £230 million is for. Perhaps when the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy winds up the debate he will tell us whether that sum is a provision for the defuelling of the nuclear core in the abandoned reactor. If not, will that sum be included in the segregated funds? What will the discount rate in the segregated fund be? Those are the critical points that investors will want to know. Ministers may have to wait until April fools day before they tell the world because they have not worked it out, but the House is entitled to know the answers.
The purpose of Select Committees is to monitor and to ask awkward questions. Sometimes they get embarrassing answers, but we have yet to get any answers from the Minister for Industry and Energy. I thought that it was personal because for years I have been abused by the Minister and I thought that he did not like me. I now realise that that is how he treats everyone who speaks in the House on energy matters. He substitutes insult and bluster for argument, logic and fact.
I know that the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy is the junior Minister and he is more constrained. I hope that tonight he will confirm that three months of work by the Select Committee—I came into the investigation later in the proceedings, but I speak for my colleagues on the Select Committee from both sides of the House—was not in vain and that the Government have taken it seriously. I hope that the report has been addressed in a way that respects the status of the Select Committee and its serious conclusions.
I doubt whether we shall get that confirmation, such is the desperate desire of the Government to get rid of nuclear power and to sell anything that they can to raise money for tax cuts. The money would have been used for tax cuts, but now it will probably be spent on compensation for farmers. That is perhaps even more


regrettable because it is yet another example of the short-sightedness of the Government and their refusal to pay proper attention to regulatory responsibility.
That is the core of the safety argument. If effective regulation of the nuclear industry is not forthcoming, investors in the industry will be so worried that they will withdraw their money and they may not even invest in the initial float later this year—if it happens.

Mr. Michael Clapham: I wish to answer some of the points raised by the hon. Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Castle Point (Dr. Spink). The Government's proposals are ill conceived and, indeed, flawed. That is not just my view, but that of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which identified several of those flaws. If the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy cares to spend some time on the Select Committee report, he will note that those flaws are clearly set out in the 18 recommendations made by the Select Committee.
I wish to deal briefly with the myth that seems to drive much of the Government's thinking—the myth that public is bad but private is efficient and good. The idea that the maximisation of shareholder value is best for the consumer has been shown to be shallow in case after case. In this instance, it is plain barmy, because profit and plutonium do not mix. A serious incident could arise from that ill-conceived mixture, and in my book that is just too great a risk to take.
Making profit the objective can result in corners being cut, to the detriment of all concerned. I draw the Minister's attention to the coal industry, which had a sound safety culture. It was the safest deep-mined coal industry in the world; yet this year we have seen an increase in fatalities and in the number of serious accidents. A change can be seen in the culture of industries when they are privatised, and that change is not for the better but to the detriment of the community.
The privatisation package consists of seven advanced gas-cooled reactors and one pressurised water reactor. The Magnox reactors, which are the dirtiest stations in the world, will remain in the public sector. In my view, the entire industry would be better off in the public sector. The nuclear industry's contribution to the generation of electricity is 28 per cent. of the United Kingdom's electricity needs. In Scotland, the figure is as much as 43 per cent. of the need. The contribution is all base-load electricity. In other words, it is bid into the pool at zero so that it can get on to the wires. That will ensure a constant income stream for the investors in the part of the industry that is to be privatised. That is why the Government want to privatise it. In logic, that part should remain in the public sector so that the taxpayer can get the benefit of an industry that has increased its productivity to a level comparable with other components of the energy industry.
Until 1990, the generation of nuclear electricity was very costly. The advanced gas-cooled reactors produced electricity at about 5.2p per kilowatt hour, but that figure has significantly improved and is now down to 2.7p per kilowatt hour. That has been achieved in the public sector and the industry has proved itself to be innovative, efficient, safe and cost-effective. That is another reason why the Government now want to privatise it.
Much has been said about safety. I do not want to scaremonger, but I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Ayr to some of the submissions made to the Trade and

Industry Select Committee. Much has been made of the submission from Captain Killick, the former director of safety and quality for Scottish Nuclear. He said that an industry in the private sector
is likely to seek to make small erosions into safety margins for commercial gain.
We have seen that happen time and again in the utilities.
Other submissions referred to the incident at Wylfa in Wales, when the station was not closed down for eight hours after a problem which could have caused real difficulties had been identified. The judge who fined Nuclear Electric said that he did not believe that commercial considerations had taken precedence. Had the industry been in the private sector, he could not have been so sure.
The Health and Safety Executive made the point in its submission that there was a tendency for the privatised industries to improve safety. I take that on board, but a leaked letter which appeared in the press last week pointed out that the cut in the budget of the Health and Safety Executive would result in a reduction in the number of inspectors and that they would therefore not be able to ensure compliance, as they had previously, in a number of industries, including the nuclear industry.
The hon. Member for Ayr will be aware of the informal network among nuclear engineers by which information on problems at one station is passed to another. I suggest that when the industry is privatised that informal networking will not take place because the different companies will see it as a breach of commercial confidentiality for one group of engineers to pass information to another group. That could cause safety problems.
Much has been said about the Heysham incident. There is no doubt that the prolonged running of the advanced gas-cooled reactors is causing concern. Perhaps the problem that was identified at Heysham is a design fault and that is what has resulted in distortion in the fuel channels. If that is the case, it means that in future the stations cannot be refuelled while they are generating electricity, which means that they will not be as viable as they have been in the past. Perhaps in his winding-up speech the Minister will elaborate on the Heysham incident and tell us whether there is a design fault.
The Select Committee was told in evidence that the liabilities amount to a massive £32 billion in undiscounted terms. The undiscounted liabilities of the package that is to be privatised are almost £15 billion. The Minister said that the liability would follow the asset, and he confirmed that today. In evidence, the Select Committee identified areas of those liabilities that were not covered. They were, for example, the reprocessing of spent fuel and the management and disposal of radioactive waste on the decommissioning of stations. Those matters were not to be covered by the segregated fund, which therefore falls far short of meeting the liabilities that the industry will have to face. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry was specific on that point. It did not think that the proposed funds were sufficient to meet the needs of the industry and it asked the Minister to look again at the segregated fund with a view to covering the gaps.
We are told that the privatisation will raise £2.6 billion, but some people suggest that it will raise only £2 billion. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on that and give us his view of the valuation, as £2 billion is just two thirds of


the cost of building the pressurised water reactor that was officially opened only yesterday. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said, it was opened just in time to be privatised.
I urge Conservative Members to support the Labour motion because this will clearly be a bad sale. It will not be good for the consumer and it will certainly not be good for the taxpayer. If Conservative Members truly wish to represent their constituents, they should vote with the Opposition.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few comments in this important debate. I start from a strongly anti-nuclear position, although I would rather see the nuclear industry in the public sector. The industry has a virtually lifelong history of loss making, and privatisation is nonsense when we consider that reactors cost about £13 billion to build and are now to be sold for just £2 billion. Decommissioning costs are projected forward 100 years, which is fairly arbitrary. If this debate were being held in 1986, we would not be speaking about a period of 100 years but about decommissioning at the end of a reactor's useful life. Perhaps in 10 years' time the policy will change again. People discount the time to a manageable figure, but it is all creative accounting.
My main concern is safety. I cannot help but feel that, when cuts are made and there is great commercial pressure, safety will be compromised. Nuclear Electric's productivity record over the past five years has been excellent, and I accept that electricity is cheaper now than it was five years ago, but that has largely been achieved by a 32 per cent. staff loss and it is projected that there could be anything up to a further 20 per cent. staff loss post-privatisation. Will that compromise safety?
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) spoke about the incident at Heysham, the importance of which could have a great bearing on the future of advanced gas-cooled reactors. The 70 ft fuel assembly became stuck during on-load refuelling because there were distortions in the channel. If those distortions were caused by the AGR being run flat out to make more profit for Nuclear Electric, they may occur in other AGRs. That poses questions about the future of on-load refuelling, and that means that the load factor falls substantially and eats into the economics of the privatised nuclear industry.
My hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone and for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) spoke about base load supply. The nuclear industry has a decisive competitive advantage in having 24-hour access to the national grid. Should that remain in the private sector? It is not genuine free competition. It is obvious that electricity produced by coal or gas would be much cheaper if plants could be run flat out over 24 hours.
I strongly challenge the economics of the privatised industry. Will it survive? There were serious problems with some AGRs over the winter at Dungeness, Hartlepool and Heysham. If they have effectively to be derated because of the problems of distortion, if the load factors start to fall, if the base load accessibility is taken away and if the nuclear levy is phased out, that will be the scenario for British Energy's becoming bankrupt early in the next century.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have four questions, to which the Minister might wish to reply in writing.
The greatest nightmare for many of us in relation to safety is what could happen at Kozloduy in Bulgaria. at any of the Czech stations, or at some of the Soviet stations such as Smolensk. The Minister will know that I met the Minister for Industry and Energy, the right hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) and Dr. Walker in the Department about a year ago. In the past, considerable technical help was given by the British nuclear industry to try to prevent a catastrophe that would have mind-boggling effects, which would be the case if there were a Chernobyl 2 or anything like it anywhere in the world.
First, in the follow-up to privatisation, how can we be sure that British help to eastern Europe will continue when private industry may not have the same financial imperatives to help eastern Europe and the Soviet Union?
My second question concerns decommissioning. The Minister said that liabilities follow associated assets. I went to Sizewell yesterday for the opening, and spoke to many people in the nuclear community who were under the strong impression, rightly or wrongly, that talks about decommissioning were continuing. They had by no means thrown in the towel in their struggle to prove that decommissioning should not be their responsibility. There may be gross misunderstandings about that, but they exist none the less. Are the Government sure that the nuclear industry understands that liabilities follow the assets? There must be some grave misunderstanding on that issue, which should be cleared up tonight.
Thirdly, as I understand it, one of the Government's arguments is that, if the industry were privatised, it would have greater access to capital markets and therefore be in a better position to undertake work overseas. Why have the French, who have a nationalised industry, had no difficulty securing work overseas? If they can do it, why has the British industry found it so difficult? It really does not take privatisation to secure those important markets overseas, or at least to be considered for them. I ask the Government, why was this privatisation necessary from the point of view of orders abroad and the capital market?
I was told, again at Sizewell, and elsewhere, that a legal cottage industry has sprung up—a lawyers' paradise—around this privatisation offer. I shall give just one example. I am told that, in the prospectus for the Hartlepool power station, it was suggested that Hartlepool power station was in an industrial area on Teesside. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) on the Front Bench is a Teesside Member of Parliament, as is the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). I am told on serious authority, and I have checked this, that the lawyers came back and said, "Prove that Hartlepool is an industrial area," because that would be the kind of advertising that it should not undertake. I gather that this kind of thing can be repeated more and more and that legal costs, because of so-called obligations under the Financial Services Act 1986, are spiralling. It is becoming an enormous added cost.
Are the Government in any position to do anything about the lawyers' paradise that is developing around the privatisation process?

Mr. John Battle: This is the first debate that we have had on the nuclear industry since the death, in November last year, of John Collier of Nuclear Electric. I am sure that we would all wish to pay tribute to his contribution to the development of the British nuclear industry.
On 4 March this year, the marketing programme and presentations for stockbroker analysts, fund managers and the financial press were publicly launched. The programme, managed on behalf of the Government by Barclays de Zoete Wedd, their financial adviser, and Dewe Rogerson, publicity advisers to the Government and to British Energy, will pave the way for the newly privatised company to be.
We are in the final countdown of the sale, which is to take place in the mid-summer, yet there is, as has been made clear tonight, widespread confusion, speculation and less clarity than ever as the Government struggle to sell British Energy to the City. There are unanswered questions that focus on the financing of the deal. The Government's nuclear sums do not add up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in his excellent summary questions, put it pertinently to the Government.
On 9 November 1989, however, the Government were crystal clear. The nuclear industry was withdrawn from the proposed privatisation of the electricity industry. The Minister at the time declared that retaining the nuclear industry in the public sector was
the best way of ensuring a long-term future for nuclear power in this country."—[Official Report, 9 November 1989; Vol. 159, c. 1174.]
That rather contradicts some of the comments of Conservative Members.
The then Secretary of State for Energy, now Lord Wakeham, announced:
The Government told the House on a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill that the arrangements for nuclear power would strike the appropriate balance between the interests of the taxpayer, the electricity consumer and the shareholder. In the event, unprecedented guarantees were being sought. I am not willing to underwrite the private sector in this way."—[Official Report, 9 November 1989; Vol. 159, c. 1171.]
I hope that we would all agree with that, so we are entitled now to ask: what has changed since then?
In May 1994, the Government set up the nuclear review, which reported in May 1995. It was set up to examine the possible options for introducing private sector finance into the nuclear industry—a precursor to the private finance initiative. The Government went further and said that they were prepared to consider without commitment representations on whether privatisation could, in principle, be feasible.
The accountants KPMG were asked to look at the management of substantial nuclear waste and decommissioning liabilities in the same year. We all know now that the compound liabilities of Nuclear Electric, Scottish Nuclear, British Nuclear Fuels plc and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority amount to well in excess of £40 billion according to the Government's White Paper. Decommissioning alone accounts for some £18 billion—undiscounted—of that figure, according to estimates published by the National Audit Office as far back as June 1993.
KPMG's report was about the management of nuclear liabilities. We should remember that liabilities are defined as costs associated with the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, the decommissioning of nuclear plant, and the management, treatment and final disposal of radioactive waste, all of which are irradiated liabilities. KPMG favoured privatisation of all the generators and British Nuclear Fuels plc and as many of their back-end liabilities and associated risk as possible; in other words, pushing the whole lot into the private sector.
What did the Government choose to do? As usual, they went for a half-baked deal, a partial option. They privatised seven modern advanced gas-cooled reactor stations and the new pressurised water reactor, Sizewell B, leaving nine aging Magnox stations and BNFL with all their liabilities in the public sector. The Government propose to strip out the current revenue-generating end of the business for privatisation, leaving behind in the public sector as many of the liabilities as possible.
In a statement on the conclusions of the nuclear review, on 9 May, the then President of the Board of Trade made it clear that the Government intended to press ahead with privatisation on that basis. He said that no primary legislation would be needed, that the Government would not need to come back to the House, and that full and proper parliamentary scrutiny would not be necessary. During questions on the statement, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) posed a critical question. He asked:
Was not The Economist magazine right when it said that it was a short-term financial fiddle to help the Tories but not the country? Why should the Government cherry-pick the nuclear industry so that a few individuals can make a great deal of money, while the vast majority of the British people are bribed with their own money in the short run and have to face higher taxes to pay for decommissioning costs in the long run?"—[Official Report, 9 May 1995; Vol. 259, c. 576–77.]
Needless to say, the President of the Board of Trade, now the Deputy Prime Minister, brushed the question aside—as usual. That devastating critique—in The Economist, of all places—bears another glance. The editorial declared:
The privatisation of part of the nuclear-power industry set out in a white paper on May 9th looks likely to be a particularly creative example of the well-honed technique of bribing the voters with their own money. In this case, the bribe may be financed not just by selling assets that the taxpayers have paid for once, but by money borrowed from future taxpayers too.
What has happened since then? Nothing, except that the Government have pressed ahead in defiance of those comments.
The Select Committee on Trade and Industry, in the absence of any full parliamentary scrutiny, set up an inquiry into the plans to privatise the nuclear industry. It focused in particular on the scale of the liabilities, how they would be covered, Government guarantees to the private operators and questions of safety and insurance. According to Gordon MacKerron, the special adviser to the Select Committee, the key argument in favour of privatisation was the raising of the proceeds for and the removal of the AGR-PWR liabilities from the taxpayer. The funds raised would have to compensate for the loss of future income from the privatised reactor.
In his paper, Mr. MacKerron concluded:
The Government seems optimistic both about the size and the uncertainty of the Magnox liabilities, and about the cash sums likely to be available to the public sector as credit against their eventual


discharge. And the contribution that the sale of the most profitable parts of the nuclear industry is likely to make to the notional funding of these public sector liabilities will probably be small both in relation to the public money expended on nuclear power in the past and in relation to the net present value of the assets to be sold.
In other words, the special adviser to the Select Committee doubted whether there was scope for further significant cost and efficiency improvements following privatisation, given the nuclear companies' record over the past five years.
More important is the question of guarantees that a private company would meet. The key questions concern the real costs of decommissioning the pressurised water reactors and the advanced gas-cooled reactors and how much the private nuclear power companies would be required to set aside for the long-term storage of the nuclear waste produced by its reactors.
On 8 June 1995, in a written answer, the Minister said:
The Government will ask all nuclear operators to draw up strategies for decommissioning their redundant plant … The precise level of the liabilities to be met will be a matter for the companies and their auditors in due course."—[Official Report. 8 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 1269–70.]
As usual, we are not to know until after the event, when it will be too late.
It is notable that, when the Government first brought the privatisation proposal to the House, the then President of the Board of Trade—now the Deputy Prime Minister—confused us by saying that there would be segregated funds to cover public and private liabilities. He quickly had to correct the Government's position—but the confusion remains. As hon. Members have said, how can the public-private liabilities—decommissioning, reprocessing, waste management and future storage—be clearly separated out so that everyone is clear about where the assets and the liabilities lie?
The independent segregated fund, set up to cover British Energy sites and the longer-term post-closure costs of decommissioning, has now been announced at £230 million. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said, the key question is whether that will be a payment for reprocessing the core. We do not know what the fund is for. What we do know, however, is that that £230 million, plus the £16 million a year that has been set aside, comes to the exact figure included in the two-year provision in the Red Book for future years. In other words, the figure was already built in to cushion the sale.
The exact nature of the transfer of AGRs and Sizewell B liabilities to British Energy was one of the main issues studied by the Select Committee. Seventeen of its recommendations referred to the cost uncertainties. Those uncertainties will remain until there is a full debate on the report. The general proposition that, whatever the level of liabilities, they should follow the assets, is accepted by the Government, but every time we press the Minister on whether that means all the liabilities or some of the liabilities—and if so, exactly which ones—we get an evasive answer. Neither BNFL nor Magnox knows what liabilities it will have to pick up in future. They could be left holding the irradiated nuclear liabilities.
Mark Baker of Magnox said in his evidence to the Select Committee that he was not fully aware what the eventual shape of his balance sheet would be. In the light

of increasing Government obscurity, it is tempting to say that the discharge of liabilities is being accelerated now to push towards privatisation and provide a cushion in the City. As the European Commissioner suggested, it practically amounts to illegal state aids to get the industry into the private sector. It is a rescheduling of the AGR liabilities, which are being loaded into the public sector as a sweetener for privatisation. Estimates for the annual contribution to the segregated fund would double if all the post-shut-down expenditure were to be covered. There is a real risk that the assets will not be sufficiently profitable to pay for inherited and future liabilities.
The Select Committee said that it was difficult to envisage how the fund could cope with a fourfold increase in a major part of the liabilities, especially if the increases occurred after existing stations had ceased to produce any revenue. The liabilities cannot be covered if stations are shut down.
I do not have time to go into detail on the fact that the Government have changed the notional discount from 2 to 3 per cent., effectively cutting one third of the liabilities and wiping out £7 billion. We saw the bullish BZW report—I believe that it is called "The Cash Generator". It says that privatisation offers investors £2 billion of free cash over the next five years. It is a revenue cash cow and a potential cash bonanza reminiscent of the lottery.
We speak of safety, but in the end this privatisation is Treasury driven. Like every other utility privatisation, it is being forced through the House. It is half-baked and not thought through. The Government want to push the industry into the private sector, grab the cash and leave somebody else to pick up the pieces. It is the fag end of a privatisation programme by a Government who are absolutely desperate for cash to buy back their long-lost popularity. [Interruption.] The Minister may mock, but in the Select Committee he said that he would have to be able to answer for the decisions that were taken. The reality is that he will not have to answer for them—he has decided to go before the ship sinks and to leave the liabilities to everybody else. That is why our motion should be supported and the privatisation halted.

The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): It is customary at this stage of a debate to say that it has been interesting. However, apart from the dynamic speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy, and the penetrating observations of my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), this debate has been par for the course. It has shown that the Labour party, like old Adam, has old Labour still lurking beneath the surface. Occasionally, through the thin veneer of new Labour, one or two honest souls popped up. For example, I found the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) refreshing and enjoyable, although I do not think that it will do his career prospects any good.
If, somehow, we could have used the marvels of technology and each time the word "nuclear" was used put a line through it and used the words "British Telecom", the debate would have been indistinguishable from the debates of the early 1980s. I served on both the Committees concerning that privatisation, and they lasted


for more than 100 hours each. We split the telecommunications part from the Post Office, and then we privatised BT and created Mercury. The then hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme spoke for more than 100 hours in Committee. What did he do? He promised, like the rest of the Opposition Members, that privatisation would mean the end of the known world, that there would be cherry picking and a collapse of rural services. One got the impression that people would have to lay in green wood in order to communicate by smoke signals. What has happened? We have one of the most successful telecommunications companies in the world.
Not to be outdone, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said that public telephone boxes would be threatened with extinction. Surprise, surprise, the number of telephone boxes has risen from 67,000 to 130,000, and 96 per cent. of them work, which would have been most unusual in the early 1980s.
I have found it rather distasteful that the role of the nuclear installations inspectorate has been continually queried in comments that have bordered on the insulting. The implication has been that the inspectorate would use the Nelson touch—turn a blind eye to the shortcomings and short cuts, and condone shoddy work practices.

Ms Walley: rose—

Mr. Page: With respect to the hon. Lady, there are only a few minutes remaining and I shall not give way, unless hon. Members want the debate to last until 10 o'clock; I have enough material to talk until then if necessary.
What is new? When we privatised the regional water authorities, we were told that we could not trust the private sector. What has happened? The very opposite: prosecutions went up, the quality of water went up, and we now have some of the best quality water in Europe. There are more blue flags on our beaches than ever before. There has been a general rise in the standard—delivered by the private sector, where the public sector failed.
Some people accuse the Labour party of U-turns. I am not one of those, but I would say that it is exceedingly flexible. I know, for example, that, in government, it set in train a massive programme of building nuclear power stations. Now, in opposition, all that has changed. It is against nuclear power and tries to undermine the industry by scaremongering. Nothing that has been said today by Labour Members would give me confidence if I were working in the nuclear industry.
The Labour party has, however, been consistent in one aspect: it has consistently opposed every privatisation that could possibly have been implemented, from British Airways to British Energy. Labour has set itself against privatisation. It has always been against it, and always will be, because it is against free enterprise. Old Labour re-emerges time and again through the thin, sophisticated veneer that has been applied by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
Rather than praising British companies and their success, the Labour party has sought to decry them. Instead of praising the remarkable benefits to consumers of privatisation, it has wilfully ignored them, which is par for the course. The Leader of the Opposition said that it

was barely an issue that electricity prices would rise because of privatisation. As we all know, electricity prices have fallen in real terms. It is worth reminding the House that, under Labour, electricity prices rose by 2 per cent. in cash terms every six weeks. Labour said that there was no evidence that the Government's Gas Bill would produce cheaper gas, yet gas prices have fallen by about 20 per cent.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was foolish enough to say that a privatised British Airways would be the pantomime horse of capitalism if it were anything at all, yet British Airways is one of the most successful airlines—if not the most successful airline—in the world. Examples of such scaremongering roll on and on, but the facts show them to be wrong. It beggars belief that a party of dinosaurs has the nerve to call itself new Labour. Privatisation has been an enormous success.
Before I turn to nuclear privatisation, I must say that it is interesting to note that the Labour party's paymasters recognise a good thing when they see it. The GMB, which sponsors the odd hon. Member, and one or two of their Lordships in the other place, has £107,000 invested in British Aerospace, £201,000 in British Steel and £131,000 in Cable and Wireless. There are plenty of examples of where, having fought and argued against privatisation, the Labour party has joined it.
To build on that schizophrenia, the Labour party accuses us of rushing nuclear privatisation through, yet in the next breath it criticises us for taking time to consider properly the very thorough Trade and Industry Committee report. We will be replying to that report in the normal time limit allowed. We believe that the future of the nuclear industry deserves careful consideration rather than the instant, superficial soundbites favoured by the Opposition parties.
What are the Labour party's policies on nuclear power? I am afraid that I am no wiser after today's debate. In the view of Conservative Members, nuclear privatisation will encourage further improvements in efficiency and competitiveness and, like other privatisations, will produce real benefits to taxpayers through reductions in the levy, which in turn will produce further benefits for the consumer.
The Opposition have tried in every way possible to scaremonger about safety and have refused to accept the assurances of the independent regulator that there will be no reductions in safety standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr quite rightly took the Labour party to task on that scaremongering. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) prayed in aid the words of Captain Killick. It might help hon. Members if they knew that the good captain did not at any time raise concerns about safety with the company, the NII chief inspector or any of the staff directly responsible to him when he was employed by Scottish Nuclear as director of safety. It is only since he left the company that those concerns have suddenly surfaced. As Captain Killick knows, Scottish Nuclear has an excellent safety record. In fact, he helped to achieve it. Safety is paramount at Scottish Nuclear, and will remain so.
The NII, the Government and the industry have all made it clear that safety will continue to be paramount and that the same rigorous regime will continue to apply after privatisation. I endorse the sense and sensibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point.

Mr. Purchase: Give him an Oscar.

Mr. Page: If only.
In reply to the question about access to the pool after privatisation, I can say only that matters will continue as they are at present.
The Opposition have gone on and on about liability without making a single reference to the tremendous cost reductions that have been achieved in recent years. It is estimated that the UKAEA decommissioning and waste management operational programmes—Drawmops—for the three years after 1994–95 have been reduced by a staggering 40 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point also referred to the savings that have been achieved by British Nuclear Fuels. I hope that that encourages the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, who also chipped in a few points about the savings achieved by the decommissioning programme.
The Magnox liabilities are currently in the public sector, and that is not going to change. What will happen, though, is that, through restructuring, there will be much a clearer focus on costs. I have every confidence that the creation of an independent Magnox company and its eventual integration into BNFL will cause a significant reduction in cost through greater efficiency in the management of liabilities. Has that not happened with all privatisations?
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) asked about the segregated fund. The fuel treatment that he mentioned will be included in the normal operating costs of the station. The initial endowment fund for the segregated fund, as announced the other day, will be £230 million and the annual contribution will be £16 million. The fund is expected to achieve a real-rate return of 3.5 per cent. on its investment policies.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) kindly me gave me an offer I cannot refuse—to write to him on the subjects he raised. I am equally concerned about the situation in eastern Europe and I will write to him to answer—

Mr. Nicholas Brown: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I will not accept the hon. Gentleman's request at this point.

Mr. Page: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This debate can go on until 10 o'clock if we feel so minded—[Interruption.] I am quite prepared to keep going because the Government have a good story to tell.
This afternoon, we have heard of the key role that the nuclear industry plays in our environmental policies. We have seen the schizophrenia of the Labour party. I have no doubt that when the industry moves into the private

sector, it will be yet another success story. The unions will invest in it to earn funds to help the Labour party to keep going. I ask the House to support the Government amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 293.

Division No. 86]
[19.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cummings, John


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ainger, Nick
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Allen, Graham
Dalyell, Tam


Alton, David
Darling, Alistair


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davidson, Ian


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashton, Joe
Denham, John


Austin-Walker, John
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Harry
Dixon, Don


Barron, Kevin
Dobson, Frank


Battle, John
Donohoe, Brian H


Bayley, Hugh
Dowd, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bell, Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Etherington, Bill


Bennett, Andrew F
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Berry, Roger
Fatchett, Derek


Betts, Clive
Faulds, Andrew


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Flynn, Paul


Blunkett, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Boateng, Paul
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Keith
Fyfe, Maria


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Galbraith, Sam



Galloway, George


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gapes, Mike


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
George, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gerrard, Neil


Burden, Richard
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Byers, Stephen
Godman, Dr Norman A


Caborn, Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Callaghan, Jim
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Canavan, Dennis
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cann, Jamie
Gunnell, John


Chidgey, David
Hall, Mike


Church, Judith
Hanson, David


Clapham, Michael
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Harvey, Nick


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Henderson, Doug


Clelland, David
Heppell, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Coffey, Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Cohen, Harry
Hodge, Margaret


Connarty, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Hood, Jimmy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corston, Jean
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)






Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hoyle, Doug
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Olner, Bill


Hutton, John
O'Neill, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Pearson, Ian


Ingram, Adam
Pendry, Tom


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pike, Peter L


Jamieson, David
Pope, Greg


Janner, Greville
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Radice, Giles


Jowell, Tessa
Randall, Stuart


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Alan
Reid, Dr John


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Rendel, David


Kennedy, Jane (L'poolBr'dg'n)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Khabra, Piara S
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kirkwood, Archy
Rogers, Allan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Terry
Ruddock, Joan


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Salmond, Alex


Litherland, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Livingstone, Ken
Sheerman, Barry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Llwyd, Elfyn
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lynne, Ms Liz
Short, Clare


McAllion, John
Simpson, Alan


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McCartney, Robert
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McFall, John
Soley, Clive


McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


Mackinlay, Andrew
Spellar, John


McLeish, Henry
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Maclennan, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


McMaster, Gordon
Stevenson, George


McNamara, Kevin
Stott, Roger


MacShane, Denis
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McWilliam, John
Straw, Jack


Madden, Max
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Maddock, Diana
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mahon, Alice
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marek, Dr John
Timms, Stephen


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tipping, Paddy


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Touhig, Don


Martin, Michael J (Springbum)
Trickett, Jon


Martlew, Eric
Turner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Tyler, Paul


Meacher, Michael
Vaz, Keith


Meale, Alan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Michael, Alun
Walley, Joan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Wareing, Robert N


Miller, Andrew
Watson, Mike


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wicks, Malcolm


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morley, Elliot
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wray, Jimmy


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wright, Dr Tony


Mowlam, Marjorie
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mudie, George



Mullin, Chris
Tellers for the Ayes:


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Joe Benton and


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Dunn, Bob


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Sir Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dykes, Hugh


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Amess, David
Elletson, Harold


Arbuthnot, James
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Ashby, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evennett, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Faber, David


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Bates, Michael
Forth, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Fit Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
French, Douglas


Body, Sir Richard
Fry, Sir Peter


Booth, Hartley
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Garnier, Edward


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gill, Christopher


Bowis, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bright, Sir Graham
Gorst, Sir John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butcher, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Carrington, Matthew
Hannam, Sir John


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cash, William
Harris, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hawkins, Nick


Churchill, Mr
Hawksley, Warren


Clappison, James
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heald, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Coe, Sebastian
Hendry, Charles


Colvin, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Hicks, Robert


Conway, Derek
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Horam, John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Couchman, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunter, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jack, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dover, Den
Jenkin, Bernard






Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Norris, Steve


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Paice, James


Key, Robert
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Kirkhope, Timothy
Patten, Rt Hon John


Knapman, Roger
Pawsey, James


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Pickles, Eric


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Powell, William (Corby)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rathbone, Tim


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Legg, Barry
Richards, Rod


Leigh, Edward
Riddick, Graham


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Robathan, Andrew


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Lidington, David
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Lord, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Luff, Peter
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


MacKay, Andrew
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Sackville, Tom


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Shaw, David (Dover)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Major, Rt Hon John
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Malone, Gerald
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Mans, Keith
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marland, Paul
Shersby, Sir Michael


Marlow, Tony
Sims, Roger


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mates, Michael
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Soames, Nicholas


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Merchant, Piers
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Mills, Iain
Spink, Dr Robert


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Spring, Richard


Moate, Sir Roger
Sproat, Iain


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Steen, Anthony


Nelson, Anthony
Stephen, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stem, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stewart, Allan


Nicholls, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sumberg, David





Sweeney, Walter
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sykes, John
Waller, Gary


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Ward, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Watts, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Thomason, Roy
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Whittingdale, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David


Townend, John (Bridlington)
 Wilshire, David


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tracey, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Tredinnick, David
Wolfson, Mark


Trend, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Trotter, Neville
Yeo, Tim


Twinn, Dr Ian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Vaughan, Sir Gerard



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Mr. Simon Burns and


Walden, George
Mr. Richard Ottaway.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House congratulates the Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear companies which, with the advent of competition in the electricity market and the prospect of privatisation, have transformed their performance over the past six years; congratulates the Government on the planned sale of the nuclear power stations of Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear, noting that it is consistent with existing legislation, will fully preserve the vigour of the safety and environmental regulatory system, will benefit the taxpayer through the transfer of liabilities to the private sector and the receipt of sale proceeds and will provide appropriate transparency about liabilities and how they will be met; notes that the Government intend to give a considered response to the Trade and Industry Committee within the normal timescale; and notes that the Opposition have opposed every privatisation, despite the proven benefits which have been recognised by a growing number of countries throughout the world.

Health and Safety

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to move the motion, I must announce that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House notes that workplace accidents caused over 30,000 deaths and major injuries and over 138,000 injuries involving three or more days off work in 1994–95; notes that threatened Government cuts mean, in the words of the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, that "we can not meet all the expectations and requirements that Government, Parliament and the Courts are placing on us with the resources now available"; recognises that privatisation of the nuclear, mining, gas and railway industries is increasing the burden of safety regulation and enforcement placed on the Health and Safety Executive; believes that a safe and secure working environment is essential to the well-being of employees and to economic success; notes that the Commission does not believe that health and safety is a burden to small business; and therefore calls on the Government to withdraw the threat of funding cuts from the Health and Safety Executive and to reverse deregulation initiatives that threaten health and safety standards.
It is not often that a leaked document so comprehensively endorses the Opposition's case against the Government, and it is all the more striking when it has been written by one of the Government's appointees. The letter that is to be sent by Mr. Frank Davies, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission and formerly chairman of Rockware plc, does exactly that.
The Opposition have constantly said that the Tory Government were taking unacceptable risks with safety. We are now told officially by the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission:
the Commission … conclude that we cannot meet all the expectations and requirements that the Government, Parliament and the Courts are placing on us with the resources now available.
He could not be clearer than that.
The Opposition have constantly said that health and safety were underfunded. We are now told authoritatively:
Assuming that our request for these additional resources is met"—
Mr. Davies is asking for £18 million, which is pretty optimistic
and that there are no further budget restrictions, we will still be facing a range of cuts in our operations, including a reduction in the number of Field Operations Division inspectors and of preventive inspections.

Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No, I shall go through what is in the letter. If, when he has listened to that, the hon. Gentleman wishes to come in, I shall be pleased to take his intervention.
The Opposition have constantly argued that proper health and safety provision was a foundation both of employee safety and of corporate success, not a penalty. Here we are told, by a former company chairman:
Cutting HSE does not reduce burdens on business.

We have constantly asserted that privatisation undermined safety. We are now officially informed:
Health and safety in the railway and gas industries in particular (though not exclusively) are high on the agenda of public concern; nuclear privatisation will raise similar concerns.

Mr. Mans: Will me hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I have not finished with the letter yet, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to hear what his own Government-appointed chairman of the Health and Safety Commission had to say.
The Opposition have constantly argued that the Government's deregulation dogma puts safety at risk. Now we have it officially on the record that
the pressure for new action
that is, action in reviewing and dismantling regulations—
not least from the Deregulation Task Force and Unit,
is
relentless".
That leaked letter blows out of the water the Government's complacent claim that safety was being protected, and that there were no grounds to fear that lives were being put at risk. They clearly were, and they clearly still are.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now that he has finished with the letter?

Mr. Meacher: Yes.

Dr. Spink: The hon. Gentleman has just read out a letter. Does he believe what it says? Does he think that health and safety are underfunded by the Government? If so, by how much does he think the Government should increase their spending, and will that be a Labour spending commitment?

Mr. Meacher: It is perfectly clear that health and safety are underfunded, and that the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission believes that an extra £18 million is the minimum necessary to restore spending to what he regards as the bottom line. Indeed, I am sure that he would say that a great deal more was needed.
I notice that the Conservative Government never fail to fund money for inspectors to check on social security fraud. There are several hundred more of them then there are dealing with industrial safety. If the Government want more money, clearly they can find it for such purposes.

Mr. Mans: rose—

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way for a moment.
Just as the nation is now learning to its cost that ministerial reassurances over BSE—bovine spongiform encephalopathy—were either misleading or even downright dishonest, so on all five count—

Mr. Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I clearly heard the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) imply that statements made by Ministers had been misleading—

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Or dishonest.

Mr. Jenkin: —or dishonest. Surely that is out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Statements referring to deliberate dishonesty are out of order. The hon. Member for Oldham, West might like to rephrase what he said.

Mr. Meacher: I am happy to rephrase, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by omitting the word "deliberate". In the light of the revelations of the past week, I do not think that there are many people in the country who do not now believe that what Ministers said in the past did mislead, and was dishonest—although I am prepared to accept that that may not have been deliberate.

Mr. Jenkin: He has just repeated it.

Mr. Meacher: On all the five counts that I read out, the letter shows that ministerial assurances about safety were hardly worth the paper that they were written on.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw something and then just repeat it? Is that not contempt of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not just repeat it. The word that he used was "Ministers" in the plural; that is acceptable.

Mr. Meacher: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Our first charge is that the Health and Safety Commission cannot meet the requirements laid down by Parliament. [Interruption.] I hope that Conservative Members, who, for understandable reasons, are rather exercised about BSE, will also pay attention to what has happened with HSE, which is just as serious.
As I said, the first charge is that the Health and Safety Commission cannot meet the requirements laid down by Parliament. Major injury rates in many industries are now rising. In the hotel and catering industry, for example, they have nearly doubled over the past decade. Among the self-employed, a fast-growing section of the population, the major injury rate has shot up by one third over the past 10 years, and the fatality rate among them is now more than double that of employees. Yet HSE staff numbers are falling.

Mr. Mans: Just so that we can have the facts on the record, I shall ask the hon. Gentleman a question. Will it be the policy of any incoming Labour Government to restore the £18 million that he suggests has been cut from the HSE budget?

Mr. Meacher: The fact is—

Mr. Mans: Yes or no?

Mr. Meacher: I shall not say yes or no; I shall give my own answer. I find it extraordinary that the

Government can spend hundreds of millions of pounds on dealing with social security fraud, but cannot find an extra £18 million. We are concerned to ensure that safety is properly protected, and that is what will happen.
The fact is that HSE staff—

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No; I shall get back to the subject that we are debating—the extremely damaging and dangerous health and safety situation that has resulted from Government cuts. When the hon. Gentleman has listened to a little more, if he has a relevant comment to make I shall give way.
The letter from the chairman of the commission notes that there are now 8 per cent. fewer staff than there were two years ago, and that further planned cuts will lead to a reduction of 20 per cent. by the turn of the century. Those are far bigger cuts than could possibly be absorbed by any improvements in efficiency. As a result, the HSE, in an unpublished work plan, shows that planned inspections are now falling sharply.
The number of inspections fell by 6 per cent. last year on the previous year, and will have fallen by a further 8 per cent. this year compared with last. Other essential HSE work is also falling behind. For example, the investigation of accidents and complaints is planned to fall by 8 per cent. over two years.
Most seriously of all, the number of proceedings instituted by HSE inspection staff for breaches, some of them pretty serious, of health and safety regulations fell over the two years to 1994 by no less than 26 per cent., so an extremely serious situation has now arisen.
If all that were taking place against a background of a falling injury rate or a falling work load, it would be more readily understood—but it is not. The work load is increasing remorselessly, and the number of workplaces, too, is steadily increasing. Furthermore, rightly in my view, a whole range of new responsibilities has been placed on the HSE over the past 12 years, covering asbestos licensing, genetic modification, gas safety, the transport of dangerous goods by road, pesticides, railway safety, nuclear safety research, offshore safety and outdoor activity centres.
Several European Union directives have involved extra safety functions for the Health and Safety Executive and, most serious of all, the fragmentation of industry—as a result of privatisation—has hugely increased its work load.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Has my hon. Friend seen the figures from the Health and Safety Executive about the fragmentation of the coal industry, and the fact that major injuries in the private industry increased by 17 per cent. between April and September 1995 compared with the same period under British Coal? Does that not mean that we need to monitor the situation more carefully?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is quite right: the situation certainly must be monitored. There has been a huge reduction in the number of coal mines owned by British Coal, and a steady increase in the number of private coal mines. This situation is serious, as most accidents occur in private mines. I think that the number


of inspectors in the coal industry has decreased to 22, which is totally inadequate for the size of the task facing them.
Enforcing a cut in staffing consistently over the years, against the steadily mounting responsibilities—it is quite right that they have been placed on the HSE—is like dismantling the dyke as the storm waves roll in. That is something for which the Government have to answer.
Charge two is that health and safety has not been properly funded, because the Government put cost cutting above safety. According to this year's Department of the Environment annual report, Government funding of HSE at constant prices is planned to fall by 14 per cent. over the next three years. As the agency spends about four fifths of its budget on staff, cuts in the budget mean staff reductions and—all too often, unfortunately—it is the most experienced who are pensioned off.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Given the fact that we are not going to get an answer about the Labour party's spending plans on the Health and Safety Executive, I take the hon. Gentleman to task on his totally groundless assertion that privatisation has somehow affected the safety records of the industries concerned.
Is it not the case that, in the railway industry, the safety record is improving, that it has improved in the gas industry, that it has improved in the electricity industry, and that it has improved in the construction industry? Is it not really the case that the Labour party is trying to find arguments against privatisation because it is ideologically committed against it? Will the hon. Gentleman give me one single instance where the Labour party has supported a privatisation proposal over the past 15 years?

Mr. Meacher: We have not supported privatisation—and for very good reasons. The health and safety record of privatisation is appalling—it is substantially worse than when the organisation is publicly owned.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman—I am answering a question asked by his hon. Friend.
There has been a lower fatality record in certain industries simply because the number of people employed in them has been reduced—there has been a huge reduction in the number of people employed in construction, in energy and in agriculture. Therefore, there is a lower fatality and major injury rate—purely because of the far fewer people who are working in the industries. The hon. Gentleman's premise is plainly wrong: the safety record of privatised industries is actually worse—for the very good reasons that I am about to give.

Mr. Bill Etherington: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to point out to some of the ignorant people on the Benches opposite that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members, not people.

Mr. Etherington: Would my hon. Friend like to point out to Government Members that it was only on

the nationalisation of the coal industry, the electricity industry and the railway industry that we started to see a substantial reduction in accidents? It is pretty fair to assume that—as we are now seeing the opposite—what Government Members are saying is rubbish.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend has confirmed the point that I have been making: the record on privatisation is poor. The number of defects in rail safety and the continual stream of major failings by Railtrack—which we saw last year—suggest that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) should think very carefully before suggesting that privatisation produces a better record.

Mr. Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No, I will not.
Of the 102 jobs that were lost last year, 85 were senior inspectors—I am making the point that, unfortunately, it is the most experienced who have been taken out. There is now a largely inexperienced group of staff, with the few senior staff left being largely taken up with training the rest. As a result, some people are now saying—I am only repeating it—that inspections are more superficial than they used to be.
The deepest cuts have been in occupational health. Each year, about 2,000 people die in Britain as a result of illness contracted at work—that is about five times the number of people who die as a result of industrial accidents—and the number of deaths is rising, particularly those from asbestosis.
The HSE's team of specialist doctors and nurses has been almost halved—in Scotland, there are only two doctors and four nurses; and in the largest of the HSE's regions, Wales and the south-west, there is only one doctor and five nurses to cover a huge geographical area and an enormous range of industries and industrial health problems. That is taking cuts almost to the point of invisibility.
Charge three is that privatisation is bad for safety—and perhaps the hon. Gentleman who asked the question will find some of this relevant. Commercial pressures will always tend to lead to cost cutting. Staff cuts, lower pay and longer hours will always be attractive in the search for greater profit margins. The experience of the deregulated bus industry shows that lower hours are directly associated with a poorer safety record, because fatigue causes accidents.
Privatisation also makes the jobs of inspectors far more complex. Railway inspectors at Crewe, for example, used to go to British Rail if there was a problem—they now have to get in touch with 25 different train operating companies. As I said, last summer a succession of leaks exposed major failings in Railtrack's safety operation, yet Britain now has to rely on only 36 railway safety inspectors, and Scotland has to rely on only three.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: Only if it is relevant to what I have just been saying.

Mr. Arnold: The hon. Gentleman made reference to public service vehicle licences.

Mr. Meacher: No, I did not.

Mr. Arnold: Yes, the hon. Gentleman made reference to PSVs about two paragraphs ago, as he will see if he cares to


look at his notes. Will he tell hon. Members what changes were made to the hours that such people should work before privatisation and since privatisation, which led to him making the allegations? What has been the precise increase in hours?

Mr. Meacher: I referred to the deregulated bus industry and the fact that, as a result of that deregulation, the hours worked are about 14 per cent. longer than they were before, although pay has fallen. There has been an increase in accidents because of fatigue. Last year, there was an unprecedented increase in complaints about the privatised gas industry, many of them—

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I will not give way again.
Many of those complaints were about safety issues. The coal industry, which is top of the industrial accident league, now relies on only 22 inspectors, despite the recent rapid growth in private employers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) said, most accidents occur in private employers' workplaces.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: rose—

Mr. Meacher: No. I will not give way.

Mr. Coombs: On that point?

Mr. Meacher: I will not give way; the hon. Gentleman may resume his seat. Perhaps he would be interested to take into account the fact that British Coal ran a respected occupational health service, which is vital in an industry dogged with respiratory disease. That has now been cut.
As the leaked Frank Davies letter acknowledges, the idea of a privatised nuclear industry is causing serious public anxiety, because there is all the difference in the world between licensing a publicly owned utility with a well-established safety culture and deciding whether to give a private operator the qualification to hold such a licence.
As recently as a week ago, the Prime Minister assured the House that privatising the nuclear industry would not affect safety standards—a comment which, I presume, should be taken in the context of a similar assurance that no arms were exported to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. The hugely increased problems and complications caused by privatisation cannot be managed by a declining and less experienced inspectorate. That key point needs answering tonight.
Charge four is that prosecutions and convictions for health and safety breaches continue to decrease and fines are often derisory, so the message is being circulated that even serious safety irregularities are nothing much for employers to worry about. Last year, there were a third fewer prosecutions than in 1989, and the average fine was a pathetic £2,500. Such fines, which are common even in the case of a death in the works, insult the worker and his family and act as an incentive to management to make savings at the expense of health and safety.
It is adding insult to injury that more than 99 per cent. of all health and safety prosecutions go, not to Crown courts, where large fines or jail sentences are possible, but to magistrates courts, where the heaviest possible sentence is only a few thousand pounds. If we are serious about stopping the growing catalogue of death and maimings at work, the least we can do is ensure that the most serious health and safety offences go to the Crown court.
I emphasise that responsibility for health and safety must be vested at the highest level of each organisation. Not underlings, but a few well-known white collars, should be prosecuted for gross negligence. Companies responsible in the late 1980s for the Zeebrugge ferry disaster, the King's Cross fire, the Piper Alpha oil platform disaster and the Clapham rail crash all got off scot-free because the law currently requires blame to be pinned on a single person who is, as the statute says, "the controlling mind" of the organisation. That makes it almost impossible to convict a corporation of manslaughter. Companies should appoint an individual at board level with overall responsibility for health and safety.
Employers must be legally prevented from penalising workers who express legitimate doubts about safety. Scandalously, 140 North sea oil workers were made jobless because they queried safety standards after the Piper Alpha disaster. Although that happened many years ago, similar dismissals continue to take place frequently today.
I quote one of many cases whose details were recently sent to me by several citizens advice bureaux. A CAB in the south of England reports the case of a man working for an electronics company. At the end of October, a work colleague had had his arm caught in a conveyor belt. Three days later, another colleague caught his hand in the same conveyor belt. The man was worried because there was no safety guard on the conveyor belt, and raised the problem with his employer, saying that he would no longer work on the conveyor belt until the appropriate guards were put in place. He was dismissed. That is extremely serious. Obviously, any employer should be legally prevented from sacking workers who draw attention to safety problems.
I return to the central theme of the debate—that health and safety will be adequately protected only if there are enough inspectors and they undertake enough inspections. That cannot be achieved on current performance with the current establishment—22,000 fewer workplace inspections this year and 380 inspections per inspector year, compared with 420 last year, and decreasing. A century ago, workplaces were inspected once a year—there were, of course, many fewer of them. Two decades ago, it was once every four years. Now it is less than once every 12 years on average. Many workplaces are never inspected. A recent survey found that more than half of all workplaces are not notified, or known, to the authorities.
Charge five is that, all too often, the Tory party puts profits before safety. It did so in pushing through rail privatisation before an adequate safety framework was in place, as even Railtrack's safety director was forced to admit. It did so when the Deputy Prime Minister's deregulation unit prevented HSE inspectors from issuing immediate improvement notices in potentially dangerous workplaces. It did so in connection with BSE, by changing Labour's planned controls on animal feed and allowing the


industry to decide for itself on cattle feeding. It did so, most cynically of all, in Westminster by deliberately channelling homeless people into accommodation that Conservatives knew to be asbestos-ridden, to secure a voting advantage.

Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No, I will not.
A party that treats the public's safety with such reckless disregard does not deserve to stay in office. If ministerial assurances about beef, asbestos, rail privatisation and workplace safety are now almost universally distrusted and disbelieved, the Government should now go.

The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`welcomes the Government's commitment to maintaining standards of health and safety at work whilst removing unnecessary burdens on business; endorses the Health and Safety Commission and Executive's role of assisting and encouraging business in its duty to assess risk and take action accordingly; and approves the rigorous approach which the Government takes to improving efficiency and effectiveness in all areas of public service.'.
As always, I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). Even for a Labour party that habitually resorts to the use of stolen or leaked documents to prosecute its case, this was a strange record, based as it was on a letter that was never agreed or sent, much less received by Ministers. It is extraordinary that the Opposition motion fails to mention so many things that are much more relevant to the debate than gossip and tittle-tattle.
In quoting in the motion a figure of more than 30,000 deaths and major injuries, the Opposition are insensitively grouping about 30,000 major injuries and the deaths of 381 employees, self-employed people and members of the public. I do not believe for a moment that those figures are to be taken lightly. The Opposition motion fails to mention that the HSE has reduced the number of fatal injuries to employees by more than half since 1981. The number of major injuries has fallen by more than 15 per cent. since 1986–87. It fails to mention that the number of injuries to employees and to the self-employed involving three or more days off work has fallen by more than 21,000 since 1986–87. Since 1979, the HSE has presided over a steady fall in the number of work-related accidents and fatalities. The fatal injury rate for employees is at an all-time low—about a third of what it was in the early 1970s.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister accept that that is because the old, traditional industries, which were far and away the most dangerous, have many fewer people working for them? Bearing in mind also the huge increase in the number of safer and smaller premises, will he accept that there has been no reduction in either fatalities or major accidents?

Mr. Jones: No, I do not accept that. We should compare the rate of accidents per 100,000 employees and, on that basis, there have been large improvements across the board. We should not be judged, as the hon. Gentleman believes, according to some bogus measure of how much is spent: we should be judged according to our achievements.
As the hon. Gentleman was a member of the last Labour Government, I propose to compare their achievements—or lack thereof—with ours. I remind the House that in 1978 the fatal injury rate was 2.2 per 100,000 workers. It is now 0.9—the lowest level on record. In the construction industry—a sector in which I worked during the last Labour Government's period in office—there were 12.2 fatal injuries per 100,000 workers. That figure is now 6.2—the lowest level on record. Under the last Labour Government, the figure for the railways—an industry to which the hon. Gentleman has devoted much time—was 19.7 per 100,000 workers. That compares with 7.7 fatal injuries per 100,000 workers in that industry under the Conservative Government. The 19.7 figure was an increase from 18.7, which was the level when Labour took office.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: In referring to the construction industry, is the Minister including in his figures any injuries involving 714 operators?

Mr. Jones: I am citing the figures for employees in the construction industry. I shall come to the self-employed in a moment, as it is a relevant point. The last Labour Government did not compile figures regarding the number of major injuries to members of the public—it took a Conservative Government to publish those. That is another step forward.
The Government should be judged also on our comparison with Europe and the world. According to the Health and Safety Executive, the number of deaths per 100,000 employees in the United Kingdom is half that of Germany, less than half the level in Italy, a third of the level in France, a quarter of the level in the United States and one seventh of the level in Spain. The number of injuries follows a similar pattern.
The Government have made abundantly clear many times our commitment to maintaining all necessary standards of health and safety protection for workers and for the public. I do not propose to take any lessons from Labour Members, given their appalling record. All those involved must play their part in ensuring that those standards are effective in the workplace. That is a clear principle of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. It is not just a matter for the Government or for purely specialist interests, such as the Health and Safety Commission or the Health and Safety Executive: it is the responsibility of every employer and employee.
Earlier today, in discussion with the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), I referred to the fact that accidents occur because people are stupid. He subsequently issued a press release denouncing me for that comment. I make it perfectly clear: if it were not for stupid people—whether they are employers, employees or members of the public—the accident rate today would be much lower. That is common sense.

Mr. Ian McCartney: The Minister may wriggle and try to reinterpret his remarks, but his statement was totally insensitive. He was trying to find an excuse for why employees are killed and maimed at work. It ill behoves him to say that the 135 people who died on Piper Alpha were stupid.

Mr. Jones: There is nothing wrong with saying that people often cause accidents through stupidity. If we were


all more careful, there would be far fewer accidents. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's experience has been, but I am sure that all hon. Members will acknowledge that every accident in which they have been involved—whether they were the victims or the cause of the accident—occurred largely because of stupidity, ignorance and all of the other human characteristics.

Mr. McCartney: Neglect.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is correct. That is why the purpose of the Health and Safety Executive is to assess where those risks are likely to arise and to devote its efforts to preventing them.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that a previous HSE report about fatal accidents concluded that about 70 per cent. of accidents were the result of inadequate safety management? That is a very different picture from the extremely inappropriate and undesirable one that the Minister is portraying.

Mr. Jones: I am relying on the Health and Safety Executive's study of accidents at work, which showed that almost three quarters were preventable either by management or by workers. Someone slipped up; someone was stupid. That is true not only of accidents at work but of those in the home and in the community.
The Government's role is clear: we must ensure that the legal framework is correct. Our basic legal framework is envied the world over. It sets goals that business must achieve; it does not tie firms up in details and prescriptive rules that quickly become out of date and therefore worse than useless. It focuses attention on risk and it promotes a response that is proportionate to that risk—tight controls if the risk is high, and a common-sense approach if the risk is slight.
I shall give one example of the impact of effective control. On the advice of the HSC, we introduced regulations requiring that helmets be worn on construction sites. A survey conducted afterwards estimated that those regulations alone reduced the number of fatal accidents by 41 per cent. and the number of major injuries by 22 per cent. To put it another way, 20 lives were saved every year. That is a significant improvement.
The Government are ensuring that our legal framework will work even better. In 1992, we asked the Health and Safety Commission to review all health and safety law—the biggest review of such law since the Robens report. We wanted to know whether it was still relevant to the risks faced by workers and the public. The Commission—which, I remind Opposition Members, includes members of the Trades Union Congress—found that 40 per cent. of health and safety law affecting the generality of business could be repealed as it was unnecessary.
We make no apologies for seeking to remove red tape from business, especially small firms. Time spent trying to find out what the law requires, or filling in countless forms, is time that is not spent running the business safely and profitably. We need a safety culture in all our firms, large and small, whereby the management of health and safety is seen as a primary task involving not just management, but staff, suppliers and customers.
Removing unnecessary law will simplify the system: it will help business to focus on dealing effectively with the real risks and on complying with the essentials.
It also makes good business sense for employers to ensure that their businesses are safe and healthy places in which to work or to visit. The annual cost to business of work-related accidents and ill health is estimated to be between £4 billion and £9 billion. Health and safety is not simply a matter of obeying the law, nor of business common sense: firms have an important moral obligation to the community to ensure that neither employees nor the public are endangered by their activities. Employees and others are required legally to pay proper attention to health and safety at work. It makes good economic sense for business and, perhaps more importantly, it is the right thing for employers and their staff to do.

Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted that the Minister is now getting on to the question of the safety of the surrounding population as well as of the work force. Since privatisation, and particularly since the privatisation of Aldermaston and Burghfield in my constituency, the Health and Safety Executive has been left as one of the few regulatory bodies to look into the very great risks—albeit a small risk in terms of likelihood—of what might happen if anything did go wrong at a nuclear site. I hope that the Minister will agree with me that any cuts to the HSE that in any way increased the risk at a nuclear site would be totally inappropriate.

Mr. Jones: Our objective is to build better performance in the future out of well-achieved performance in the past.

Mr. Michael Clapham: On the point that the Minister made about a safety culture, he will be aware that the British deep coal mining industry was the safest industry in the world prior to privatisation. Can he confirm that, since privatisation, there has been an increase in fatalities and major accidents in terms of numbers per hundred thousand?

Mr. Jones: No, I cannot confirm that; indeed, it is not the case.
I shall set the figures that I have given in context to assess risks in the workplace. Let us consider fatalities. Nearly 400 employees, self-employed people and members of the public died as a result of workplace activity in 1994–95. In the year to September 1995, 3,663 people were killed in road accidents. In 1992—the last year for which figures were available-3,841 people died in accidents at home.
Let us examine the figures for major injuries. About 30,000 employees, self-employed people and members of the public received major injuries because of work-related activity in 1994–95. That figure compares with 46,115 people who were seriously injured on the road in the year to September 1995, and with 210,600 serious accidents in the home in 1994. Of course we would all love to be able to eliminate all risks from our lives.

Mr. Tipping: The Minister has been talking about major injuries. Returning to the coal industry, will he confirm that the HSE's figures show that major injuries


in that industry have increased by 17 per cent. in the period from April to September 1995 compared with the same period under British Coal?

Mr. Jones: I do not know what is the source of the hon. Gentleman's figures.

Mr. Meacher: The Health and Safety Executive.

Mr. Jones: Those figures were not available from any source that I have seen. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) will refer to the precise source of the figures later if he has an opportunity to speak.
We would love to be able to eliminate risk, but we have to live in the real world. I suggest to Opposition Members that the evidence is that we are making great strides forward in identifying and controlling risks in the workplace. That does not mean that anyone should be complacent. In 1994–95, for example, within the downward trend of fatalities, there was a small increase in deaths in agriculture. The HSE is a sophisticated body, however, and it is well able to adjust to changing priorities. For example, it is working with manufacturers and suppliers of equipment in the agricultural sector to make their products safer and easier to maintain.
There has been much scaremongering about the effects of privatisation on health and safety. Let me put the record straight on that. On railways, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is satisfied that the current safety regime, which was put in place by the HSC with his agreement, is achieving its aim of maintaining standards during the process of privatisation and beyond. This year, the HSC plans, among other things, to visit all "new" operators as part of the railway inspectorate's planned programme of visits.
On gas safety, the Government accepted in full the HSC's March 1995 report, "British Gas Supply: A Safety Framework", which proposed a safety regime to support liberalisation of the domestic gas supply market. On 1 April, new Gas Safety (Management) Regulations 1996 will come into force, putting the Commission's report into effect. The new regulations will maintain existing safety standards and, where possible, offer scope to improve them. They require gas transporters to submit a safety case which must be accepted by the HSE.
Tougher legislation was also introduced in 1994 to reduce further the incidence of gas-related carbon monoxide poisoning by placing specific duties on landlords to maintain gas appliances supplied by them in rented accommodation and to arrange annual safety checks. New regulations, also to come into force on 1 April, will do more to combat carbon monoxide poisoning. The HSC has backed that up with highly effective publicity and advice, and it has run some major publicity campaigns, including some on the dangers of gas-related carbon monoxide poisoning.
The current nuclear regulatory regime in the UK is internationally recognised as a rigorous system for ensuring that a high level of nuclear safety is achieved. The Government fully support that approach. As a result of the commission's advice to the Government's nuclear review, the companies that in future will run the nuclear power stations affected by privatisation have been required to apply for new nuclear site licences.
This year, the HSC plans to undertake an audit on the impact of restructuring the nuclear industry to confirm that safety standards are being maintained. It will also continue its work on inspection of radioactive waste and ensure that progress is made on the decommissioning of older nuclear chemical plants. The Government are satisfied that the current work programme will ensure that existing high standards of health and safety will be maintained.
Industries involved in privatisation or liberalisation have seen steady improvements in health and safety since the 1970s. The number of fatal accidents in the mines industry has decreased from 13 in 1990–91 to two in 1994–95. On the railways, the number of fatal accidents has decreased from 68 in 1991–92 to 42 in 1994–95. In some industries, such as mines, part of the reduction is, of course, related to the down sizing of the industry. In other industries, such as railways, the reduction can only be the result of an effective safety regime and the monitoring of safety standards.
The commercial successes of privatisation have not been achieved by compromising on health and safety. On the contrary, as Ministers have said repeatedly, we remain absolutely committed to helping privatised businesses to maintain necessary health and safety standards. It is in any case absurd to argue that commercial managements would take risks with their employees or their customers.
What really irks Opposition Members is that privatisation is succeeding. That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). Privatisation is increasing business efficiency, and it is allowing employees to take a direct stake in the companies in which they work and to feel more than ever that they have a personal interest in the success of those companies. Indeed, it is giving everyone the opportunity to own a real share of the nation's assets. The number of private shareholders has more than trebled, from 3 million in 1979 to 10 million today.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jones: If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell me about his shareholdings, I will give way.

Mr. Meacher: On the point that the Minister is making about employee involvement in companies, does he think that it is right that employers can currently sack employees who raise queries on safety standards? If he thinks that that is wrong, what do the Government plan to do about it?

Mr. Jones: As the hon. Gentleman knows, legislation is before the House on that issue, which we have been following with interest.
Even if it is too much to expect Opposition Members to join me in applauding the success of privatisation, they can surely join me in acclaiming the achievements of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive in their 21st year. We should not be knocking a system that works.

Mr. Ian McCartney: rose—

Mr. Jones: No, I have been very generous in giving way.
The HSC inherited a considerable burden of outdated and disparate health and safety law—with an ethos based on the old-fashioned idea that regulation must spell out in great detail what had to be done, and precisely how. Of the many achievements the HSC and the HSE can be proud of, perhaps the single most important contribution was to replace that outmoded approach to regulation with a new risk-based approach, encouraging employers and others to take action appropriate to the risk involved—no more and no less. The predominant thrust of today's regulatory activity is self-regulation: the acceptance of their responsibilities by those who cause the risks.
Nowhere has that contribution been more important than in the formulation of European health and safety legislation, in which the HSC's pressure, backed by its recognised expertise, has resulted in the progressively wider adoption of a risk-based system of regulation. That approach is far more effective and less burdensome on business than the more prescriptive legislation found in some other member states, which no doubt accounts for their much worse safety record.
At the same time as pushing forward that sea change in philosophy, the HSC has also provided continuity by maintaining a large-scale annual programme of workplace inspection and investigation. The speed with which our traditional industrial base has given way to new technologies has required considerable effort on the part of HSE inspectors to keep abreast of new technologies, new products, new materials and new processes. The HSE's field force has met the challenge magnificently. Along with all other Government Departments and agencies, the HSE must maximise its efficiency and effectiveness. Vital though the work is, there are many other calls on the public purse.
The HSE has a strong record of efficiency improvements. In 1994–95 it made efficiency savings of almost 3 per cent. of its running costs. That was achieved while broadly maintaining the level of staff resources deployed on inspection. The HSE used a variety of efficiency techniques to make these savings, including market testing, contracting out and other "Competing for Quality" measures. Its market testing programme alone has led to savings of £5 million a year.
Information technology has helped the HSE to make substantial gains in efficiency and effectiveness. The new Focus computer system, which includes a database of hundreds of thousands of industrial premises, will provide better information on which to base management decisions and improve the quality of advice that can be given to industry.
Like any large and complex organisation, the HSE continues to evolve. It operates in, and seeks to regulate, a rapidly changing industrial environment. The structural changes in British industry, including the growth in small firms and technological advances, have produced shifts in the pattern of workplace accidents and have caused the HSE to rethink the way it carries out inspections and interacts with those in control of work activities. That has led to the development of new techniques, alongside the traditional workplace inspection visit, to ensure that new and major risks are adequately regulated.
HSE is also undergoing structural change. It is moving to a leaner management structure—[Interruption.] It is typical of Opposition Members to be interested in

management, not in what is being done on the ground by inspectors who are trying to deliver better safety. It is the record that counts. The HSE is moving to a leaner management structure, with improved arrangements for quality assurance and more effective collaboration between its many different areas of professional expertise. All this should further enhance its efficiency and effectiveness.
To sum up: the United Kingdom has a health and safety system that works. It is a risk-based system that focuses on prevention. It places responsibility on those in the workplace to assess and manage the risks. I therefore urge the House to throw out the Opposition motion and approve the Government amendment.

Ms Ann Coffey: I am pleased to take the opportunity that this debate offers to raise some of my concerns about the operation of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994.
Greater Manchester has the highest student population in Europe. It also has a high number of houses in multiple occupation—often old houses converted into flats and bedsits. Students occupy the worst of this accommodation. Unlike other low income groups, they are not able to claim, through housing benefit, a subsidy for their accommodation. That means that they tend to occupy the cheaper accommodation. It is cheaper because it is usually of a lower standard, either in terms of space, structure or repair, or because of its fixtures and fittings—or lack of them.
In these properties are to be found old, faulty and poorly maintained gas fires. In answer to a parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 19 January 1996, the Minister for Health said that, on average, 272 young people under the age of 25 suffer a non-fatal incident of carbon monoxide poisoning every year, and 28 die. It is not difficult to see why.
On the same date, the Minister gave the comparable figures for 1985, when 250 accidental injuries owing to carbon monoxide poisoning were ascribed to home heating appliances. In 1994, there were 211, which is not very different. There were 16 deaths in 1985 and 30 in 1994—almost a 100 per cent. increase. These statistics and public pressure prompted the Government to introduce the 1994 regulations.
As the House will be aware, the regulations place a duty on landlords to have their gas fires inspected annually, and they allow prosecutions of landlords who fail to do so to be brought under section 33 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. It is estimated that between 349,000 and 699,000 households are affected by the regulations.
To find out how effective the regulations are, I asked a parliamentary question to which the Minister responded on 7 February. He said that only two convictions had been secured since the introduction of the regulations. But that information appears to be wrong, because the director general of the Health and Safety Executive told me in a letter that 41 convictions had been obtained. Whether the true figure is two or 41, it is still too low, considering the number of properties involved and the state they are in.
I am left speculating as to the reasons. The first problem is that the system relies on self-reporting. There is no independent inspection of HMOs; it is not within


the remit of the fire service or the local authority to check gas appliances. There may be a registration scheme for houses in multiple occupation, but it does not apply in this case.
The problem is well illustrated by a case brought to me recently by a landlord, who complained about Manchester city council's enforcement of the regulations in respect of a faulty gas fire in his rented property. On following up the matter, it was clear to me that the city council had admirably discharged its responsibility. Because of the landlord's delaying tactics, the council had gone in, done the necessary work and presented him with the bill—which is what he was complaining about. It was clear to me that the landlord saw his tenants as trouble makers and was determined to evict them at the earliest opportunity because of their contact with the council.
Irresponsible and neglectful landlords are the very people who are likely to fail to maintain gas fires and to make their tenants pay, either by rent increases, or by threatening them with eviction. Such are the limitations of self-reporting.
I suggest that the greatest problem with making the regulations effective stems from the shortages of staff and resources in the HSE. I have also asked the Minister about the number of complaints made by tenants and the number of visits by inspectors, but I was told that the information was not available. It would appear from the letter from the director general of the HSE that such information is simply not reported—very convenient, since it would embarrass the Government if it showed that the problem was indeed caused by a shortage of inspectors to implement the regulations.
Since the free gas safety advice line was set up in October 1995, more than 10,600 calls have been received, of which it is estimated that half came from tenants. Quite what that estimate means I do not know, as the information—again—is not recorded. I remind the Minister that only two prosecutions have been brought and only 31 enforcement notices issued by the HSE. I strongly suggest that those figures do not reflect accurately the scale of the problem. They merely reflect the fact that there are not enough inspectors or resources to do the job. Gas fires in the properties of unprincipled landlords are dangerous: they kill people.
Gas fires will continue to kill people unless the Government give the HSE the resources to do the job. What is the point of putting regulations on the statute book without underpinning them with the necessary resources? That renders them meaningless. I maintain that the statistics on enforcement and prosecution—they are the only ones we have—prove a lack of resources. That in turn means that the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations will not achieve the admirable objective for which they were introduced.
I ask the Minister to look again at this problem and to act, because act lie must. These fires are dangerous, and people will continue to die unless something is done. The Minister has it within his power to reduce the incidence of carbon monoxide poisoning in this country. This week, the Government have said repeatedly that life is a risk. That seems to be the current line.

Mr. Etherington: Does my hon. Friend agree that she has made a paramount case for positive regulation that

would place statutory responsibility on landlords to have appliances properly maintained by someone who has the knowledge to do it?

Ms Coffey: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am sure that we are in total agreement that action must be taken.
This week, the Government have stated repeatedly that life is a risk, but surely it is the responsibility of the Government to minimise that risk, through the regulations that they put on the statute book and the staff they employ to underpin those regulations. If the Minister were to underpin the regulations with some resources, he might be able to reduce the number of people who die from carbon monoxide poisoning every year because of faulty gas fires.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) on her thought-provoking and interesting speech. I have not applied my mind to the gas regulations before. The hon. Lady raised some important points and mentioned some disturbing statistics and I very much hope that my hon. Friend, in replying to the debate, will consider what she has said thoughtfully.
In that spirit, I venture to suggest that the hon. Lady's proposal of state regulation as the sole prescription for addressing the problem might not always be appropriate. I am open-minded, as I have not considered the matter in detail, but she should remember that such a diversified problem affects many individual locations and the responsibility of many individuals. Although she referred to properties in multiple occupation or landlord-let properties, some of the figures she mentioned might also apply to owner-occupied properties.

Ms Coffey: indicated dissent.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Lady shakes her head, so I stand corrected.
Public education, for example, could play a significant role in alerting individuals to the responsibility for their own safety. Obviously that is not the total answer, but I noticed the strong theme in the hon. Lady's speech. She insisted that the problem was the sole responsibility of Government, but her conclusion that the Government should be solely responsible for all those safety issues cannot be the final answer.

Mr. Etherington: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I am quite impressed by his approach. It would be fair to say, however, that when a problem is as well documented as the role of landlords in cases of carbon monoxide poisoning, it is not unreasonable to expect the Government to take some action.

Mr. Jenkin: I fully understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I reiterate that I have not applied my mind to the gas regulations before now. I am simply pointing out that it might not be appropriate to regard all safety issues—even that one—as the sole responsibility of the Government, as though the Government were the only possible solution. Regulation requires a whole range of


solutions, not least to educate the public and employees—in their own interests and for their own safety—on how to behave and what to be alert to in particular circumstances.
As a Conservative, I am proud to speak in a debate about health and safety. for in the last century Conservative Governments made a great contribution to health and safety legislation and initiated the manner in which we now regulate health and safety. The Factory Acts spring to mind—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And the mines and quarries legislation.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend reminds me that the mines and quarries legislation was also produced by Conservative Administrations. Those are examples of good Tory legislation.
As we become a more sophisticated and complex society, we need to create a culture for safety in industry and commerce, not just a regulatory environment. The real lesson that any business man operating a modern business in Britain must learn is that every accident—almost however minor—is of huge, disproportionate expense compared with the costs that might have been saved by omitting to provide for that eventuality.
Industrial accidents are hugely expensive for the businesses concerned and any decent modern business quickly learns—if it has not already learned—that safety is of paramount importance for its own viability, for the contentment of the work force and for the efficiency of the business.
There is a danger of a polarisation in attitudes across the Chamber, with one side of the House offering as the sole solution a huge system of compulsion and enforcement, seeming to neglect the enlightened self-interest of employees and employers to co-operate for their mutual safety.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred to employees risking dismissal by raising health and safety issues. I note that he glibly drew conclusions from the little information he gave us, but it is impossible to comment on an individual case. We have absolutely no idea from the information that he gave us of the detail of that case and its background. There might be a whole range of circumstances leading to the dismissal of an employee on health and safety issues. Of course it would be wrong to make it a hanging offence in business to complain about safety issues. Enlightened employers naturally wish to improve their health and safety record because it is bad for business to have a bad record.
In health and safety issues, regulations and enforcement must reflect a balanced assessment of risk. I know that I shall create shock and horror in some parts of the House when I say that the figures that my hon. Friend the Minister produced, comparing accidents on the road and accidents in the home with accidents at work, bear out the suggestion that in some industries we may be over-regulating for safety. It is impossible to envisage an industry that creates no accidents, however desirable that

might be, and to regulate out those very last accidents—the last 5 per cent.—would be so prohibitively expensive as to make it impossible to run some industries.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I apologise if the hon. Gentleman has not reached that point in his speech, but will he advise us in which industries should there be total deregulation?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman appears to have misunderstood me. I am not advocating total deregulation of any industry and I would be grateful if he would register that fact. There are, however, industries where it would be impossible to regulate out all accidents. The method of regulation must therefore balance cost and benefit—the cost of regulation must match the benefit in reduced accidents and fewer lives being lost.
Let me give a classic example. Whenever we get into an aircraft, we accept the possibility that it will crash and all the passengers will be killed. We do not insist that the manufacturers include every possible safety feature: for instance, we do not insist that aeroplanes should have six engines in case five fail.

Mr. McCartney: The aeroplanes would never take off.

Mr. Jenkin: That is the point. The expense of applying such a regulation would make it prohibitive and counter-productive. Even after the Manchester air disaster, we do not insist that there should be an emergency exit at the end of every aisle, although many lives would have been saved by the provision of such exits. The same considerations should be applied to the regulation of health and safety in the workplace. Often, not enough cost-benefit analysis is carried out to ensure that the prevention of risk is matched by the cost of implementing safety measures.
For some reason, the public tolerate far fewer accidents and injuries on the railways than on the roads. The statistics are rather embarrassing; I am sure that the Department of Transport would not want me to advertise them. It seems that the cost of the saving of each life and the prevention of each serious injury on the railways by means of safety measures is far higher than it is on the roads: we are not prepared to spend nearly as much on the roads.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Might that not be because on the roads we feel, however mistakenly, that our fate is in our hands—although there may be some mad beggars on the other side of the road—while on a train we are in other people's hands?

Mr. Jenkin: I agree that people are much more wary of risks that they do not understand and do not control. That is why—if I may digress for a moment—the current hysteria about the link between Creutzfeld-Jakob disease and BSE has become so out of control. Not even the scientists really understand the possible links, and because the information is so tentative and the consequences of catching CJD are so disastrous, although the risks may he infinitesimal compared with those of smoking a cigarette or drinking a pint of beer a day, no rational analysis of the risk has been carried out.
The nuclear power industry has been vastly over-regulated. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members are instinctively suspicious of the industry, because it is


"nuclear". That apparently puts the risks involved into a completely different category from the risks involved in, for example, crossing the road, although hon. Members are far more likely to suffer as a result of crossing Whitehall on a wet and windy day than to suffer from fallout as a result of a nuclear accident.
I am trying to put all the risks on a scale, but that is difficult, because it is all to do with perception. Nevertheless, we must do that if we are to regulate rationally and intelligently, without imposing excessive costs. If we fail, there will indeed be a terrible cost: we will have fewer jobs. Many may think it strange that we should balance safety in industry and commerce against the possibility of jobs; but if we over-regulate industry, we will not necessarily make industry much safer. There will still be accidents, and the excessive costs could destroy many jobs.
Every hon. Member must accept that it is a question of balance rather than absolutes. Too much health and safety regulation could create a much more dangerous society—a poor society in which there were fewer jobs, businesses were less prosperous and people were prepared to take worse jobs, perhaps with worse safety records, than they would in more prosperous conditions.
I want to view the issue of jobs versus health and safety in the context of the great European debate. The one area in which the United Kingdom has been successful under this Conservative Government is that of job creation. That is because we have taken an intelligent approach to health and safety and risk assessment, and to flexible labour markets. In other European countries, a creeping cross-fertilisation has led to the view that flexible labour markets are somehow inimical to health and safety. The most glaring example of that is the working time directive, which was initially promulgated under a unanimous voting provision of the treaties but which was subsequently labelled a health and safety item.
The recitals to the directive say that limitations on working hours are necessary to health and safety. That may be true in certain industries, and it is possible to regulate those industries individually: truck drivers, for instance, are allowed to drive for a limited time in a particular day or week. It is not necessary, however, to regulate all jobs in that way, and it is irrational to do so on health and safety grounds. Many hon. Members work for considerably more than 48 hours each week—

Mr. McCartney: That is their choice.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but why should we allow the European Community to deny the same choice to others?

Mr. Meacher: They have a choice.

Mr. Jenkin: That is not true. The working time directive will make it illegal for employers to pay people for more than 48 hours a week. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am wrong, I shall be happy to give way to him.

Mr. Meacher: We might as well get the facts right. The working time directive contains a number of exemptions: it excludes public service workers, medical workers, police, firefighters and security people. It also

permits an individual to work for more than 48 hours a week if he agrees to do so. What it prevents is the requirement by an employer for that individual to work for more than 48 hours against his will.

Mr. Jenkin: All sorts of employment in all sorts of industries require flexible working patterns. For example, it would be impossible to organise construction contracts effectively—such contracts are very dependent on the weather—if people could not be employed to work short hours in bad weather and long hours in better weather.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: When I worked in the textile industry, while the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was a lecturer in social gerontology, I worked for 72 hours a week for one week and did nothing the following week. That is the continental shift system.

Mr. Jenkin: I am most grateful for a further example.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I add a further and rather more up-to-date example? The employees of a recycling firm in my constituency work three days on the trot and then have three days off, and then work another three days. They work 12-hour shifts and they love it because they can have long weekends.

Mr. Jenkin: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and there are innumerable examples that hon. Members could bring to the House of people who voluntarily work more than 48 hours a week and voluntarily take jobs in which at times they will be compelled to work more than 48 hours a week. We do not require a whole European directive, promulgated on the bogus pretext of health and safety, to be imposed.

Mr. Etherington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: Certainly, although I wish to finish soon.

Mr. Etherington: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he will know that I have often given way to him in similar circumstances.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that studies of mining and other heavy industries have shown, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the majority of accidents tend to occur towards the end of an employee's working day? Does he accept that under those circumstances it is bounden upon the Government to regulate the hours? We cannot have a system of deregulation if people are likely to work long hours and injure themselves and others.

Mr. Jenkin: As I have said, there is a case for regulating the hours in some industries. I do not know to which industries the hon. Gentleman referred, but I referred to the transport industry which certainly has regulations on how long people can work in the name of safety and because of fatigue.
Before I fatigue the House too much with my comments, I shall mention another directive with which we are threatened for so-called health and safety reasons—the extension of works councils. There is no conceivable argument in my mind that could justify compulsory works councils for businesses on health and safety grounds. Indeed, the present works councils


directive was promulgated under a unanimity provision in the treaty, and the United Kingdom vetoed it. It was then progressed under the social protocol and should not apply in this country. But the United Kingdom now has a competitive advantage and businesses based in the United Kingdom have decided not to invest in the continent of Europe because they will get tangled up in European works councils.
Some big businesses—for example, Hanson Trust—are investing substantially in third countries. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham, West should stop chattering across the Chamber and listen to what I am saying. He slapped enough Conservative Members down.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is waffling.

Mr. Jenkin: Businesses are coming to invest in the United Kingdom because they enjoy the flexibility and do not want to get tangled up with European works councils. The effect of the works councils directive as presently set up is to drive investment into this country and make Britain, as Jacques Delors said it would be, a paradise for inward investment. Our European Community partners cannot tolerate that, so now a consultation paper has been put out by the Commission which suggests that compulsory works councils should be set up—not just in Europeanwide businesses, but in domestic businesses—to discuss health and safety matters. That is a clear abuse.
The consultation papers says that, because the works councils would discuss health and safety matters, the Commission invites comments from member states about which treaty powers it should use to promulgate the directive. The obvious implication is that—as the directive is a so-called health and safety matter in the minds of its creators—it should be promulgated under health and safety and subject to a qualified majority vote. In that way, the directive could be imposed on the United Kingdom.
The important point is that our system of light-touch regulation, sensibly balanced with flexible labour markets, results in a better safety record. As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, the death rate per 100,000 workers in this country is half the German rate, less than half the Italian rate, a third of the French rate, a quarter of the US rate and one seventh of the Spanish rate. Yet the policy to which the Government were committed when elected is being stripped away by the action of European federal law, and we are denied the opportunity to pursue the policy on which we were elected. That is not only detrimental to the self-respect of and the public respect for a Conservative Government, but detrimental to the interests of this country.
On that crucial health and safety matter, I set great store by the paragraph on page 12 of the IGC White Paper, which we discussed in the House last week, that refers to the need for "Limitation of Community action", because unless we can contain the ever wider application of European federal law, we will have to admit to ourselves that we are in a legal federal system; that we will have incorrect policies imposed upon us; that we will be unable to pursue the policies that we were elected to pursue; and that we will fail the country. In the name of health and safety, that matter must be addressed.

Mr. Ken Eastham: The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) thinks that he has made a pretty speech, but it was one of the daftest speeches that I have ever heard in the House. He said that he thought there was too much health and safety regulation in the nuclear industry. One has only to remind him of Chernobyl and of the thousands of people who have died as a result of the lack of health and safety regulation in Chernobyl and in the nuclear industry. The hon. Gentleman said that regulation might cost a few jobs, but the lack of it has cost thousands of lives. I cannot believe the hon. Gentleman's ineptitude. Although he has probably never worked in industry in his life, he thinks there is too much health and safety regulation in the nuclear industry.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Eastham: I will not give way, because the hon. Gentleman is not worth a reply. He is so silly.
Earlier in the debate, when my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made his opening remarks, there were two or three Conservative Members here for nuisance value. They were gibing at my hon. Friend and they made a big scene about £18 million pounds for the Health and Safety Commission.
We make no apologies for trying to save lives. The director of the Serious Fraud Office addressed a meeting that I attended a couple of weeks ago. He reported that, last year, serious fraud in big business amounted to £10 billion. Little is being done about that, but Conservative Members showed great passion about spending £18 million on improving health and safety. That puts in perspective how they see the values of modern society.
The Health and Safety Executive used to report annually to the Select Committee on Employment. Of course, that Select Committee is no longer in action, because the Conservatives have seen it off, but I hope that the executive will still report to other Select Committees. The cost to industry of health and safety problems is estimated to be about £10 billion a year. That is a telling figure. It is a loss not only to industry but to the nation.
Another issue that is never mentioned is the massive burden that is placed on insurance companies which have to meet phenomenal costs that could often have been avoided. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said, the Health and Safety Executive reported to our Select Committee that it had a serious shortage of doctors and nurses. Over a two-year period, the number had gone down by 50 per cent.—from 100 to 50. That is a serious matter and should worry all hon. Members.
I look through the annual reports year by year and I notice that one of the great problems is in the construction industry. On average, a person used to be killed every three days. Someone may say that it has changed over the past two years and that now only 2.5 people are killed each year, but the accident figures in construction are horrendous and we know some of the reasons for that. Small firms and cowboy organisations cut corners, and we are aware of the price that the industry pays.
Nowadays the buzz word in parliamentary circles is deregulation, but when we use that word we are playing with death. There is no doubt that there will be continual cutting of corners, and it is frightening to think of what


will happen. The results will not be evident immediately, perhaps not for 12 to 18 months, but I have no doubt that they will become apparent. To be fair, large firms are usually responsible and have very good records. The small firms cause the problems, and that should cause the House great concern. Many small firms do not have any written health and safety policy document for employees, and some employers do not even know that such a document is required.
Another problem arises because of the employment of part-time and temporary workers. The more temporary and part-time workers there are, the greater will be the increase in accidents. The CBI recently produced a report called "Flexible Labour Markets". I am bothered when I see in such documents references to the de-skilling of craftsmen's work. Serious consequences will flow from the trend in industry to have workers who are experts at everything. An employee is expected to be a gas fitter, an electrician and a mechanical engineer all in one. Such demands on some people in the work force will, in time, have an effect and will be costly for industry.
Less than two years ago, a document was issued by the West Midlands health and safety action advice centre. It is a catalogue, case after case on page after page, of all kinds of serious injuries in the midlands. Some horrendous cases could have been avoided. The document refers to the lack of meaningful penalties on employers and company directors. They go to the magistrates court and pay £200 to £300. A person may have lost two or three fingers or may never work again, but the employers seem to get away with it. The document is called "The Perfect Crime" and it relates how companies get away with manslaughter in the workplace. I commend the document to Conservative Members. If they have consciences, it might take the smiles off their faces.
The document contains an interesting little article about the United States experience. For example, in 1993 a company owner called Emmet Roe was imprisoned for 20 years following his conviction for the manslaughter of 25 workers. Does anyone think that the courts in this country would take matters as seriously as that? Would cases be used as examples of the importance of health and safety?
I read a recent newspaper story about accidents in hotels. Evidently, part-time, untrained students who are desperate to earn a few bob get work in hotels. Serious burns and all kinds of unacceptable accidents are happening; unfortunately, they are happening to young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) made a telling and worthwhile reference to the installation of gas boilers and gas fires. Often, untrained and unqualified fitters install such equipment, and only three years ago in Manchester there was a fatality from gas poisoning. An immediate inspection of 2,000 heating systems found that half were faulty. They were poisonous and could have caused fatalities.
I do not think that the problem is unique to Manchester. I wonder how many thousands of these lethal pieces of equipment there are throughout the country waiting to strike somebody dead tomorrow, next week or next year. That should cause us concern. That is why we place great importance on health and safety. We are not being flippant when we talk about health and safety; it is a very serious matter.
I remind the House of the Piper Alpha disaster. I am an engineer, and I remember Lord Cullen's inquiry. We lost 167 engineers, not because of faults that they had made. There was a catalogue of neglect—page after page—on the valves, the safety equipment, even on the equipment on the vessels that brought the people off the rig. We should feel thoroughly ashamed about that. Yet nobody went to prison. Nobody got 20 years, as happened in America when 25 people died. People held their hands up in horror and said, "We've got to do more about this and charge the people responsible." That is what it is really about when we talk about health and safety.
More recently, there has been the privatisation of the railways. There will be about 20 companies. I note that as soon as American buyers come in to buy the railways they talk about de-manning, but there will be a human price to pay. I think that there will be a number of horrendous rail accidents as a result of the serious de-manning proposed through privatisation. Hon. Members should prepare themselves, because in the next months and years there will be many serious but avoidable rail accidents because there will not be sufficient manpower to ensure that things function correctly.

Mr. Etherington: My hon. Friend's confidence will not have been boosted when he was recently made aware that one of the companies will get its rolling stock from a museum, where it has resided for a number of years, because it is felt to be more suitable than what it is running at the moment.

Mr. Eastham: That certainly fits the bill. Those are the quality and standards to which we can look forward in this great revolutionary improvement. The Government call it privatisation and get away with it. I wonder why people are not outraged, and not practically running to the barricades to say, "We are not having any more of this." The Government get away with it for now, but they will not at the next general election, because many of those bright young fellas on the Conservative Benches will not be Members of Parliament any more, that is for sure.
Can we honestly say that enough inspections are being made? Nowadays, life is far more sophisticated. Equipment in homes and factories is far more sophisticated. It is not like it was a hundred years ago. Surely there should be more health and safety inspections, not fewer. I believe that, under the guise of deregulation, the Government hope to reincarnate 19th-century working conditions. That is what they call progress at the end of the 20th century.

Mr. Peter Butler: I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Stephens Itex Ltd., manufacturer and supplier of safety equipment, which appears in the Register of Members' Interests.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham). I have been professionally involved as a lawyer in cases of death and serious injury. I do not need to read a booklet to find out the horror that it causes and the problems that arise from it. Nor, I accept, does he, as his record on this is excellent. I agree that this is an extraordinarily serious matter.
It is not correct, as the hon. Gentleman implied, to say that privatisation—I prefer to call it denationalisation—of the railway industry will lead to lower safety standards,


and it is irresponsible of him to run that scare. I make the point that the Government adopted in full, without quibble or hesitation, every one of the more than 30 recommendations that the Health and Safety Executive made on privatisation in its report to the Select Committee on Transport.

Mr. Eastham: It is one thing for the Government to accept those recommendations, but how can we be sure that they will be implemented when we already know that there is a massive shortage of inspectors? How can we be sure that inspections will take place? It is one thing to put that on paper, but it is another to ensure that they happen.

Mr. Butler: In law, we used to call that alternative pleading. The hon. Gentleman stands up and says that nothing is being done; he then stands up and says that it may be being done, but how do we know that it is effective? I do not accept his cynicism. Nor do I accept that the denationalised railways will want to kill their employees and injure their passengers. That is absurd. They will want to sell tickets and carry passengers; it will be the first time in my adult life that that happens on the railways.
I reject the Opposition's claim that our safety record as bad and, by implication, that the Health and Safety Executive is ineffectual. That is what they are saying when they claim that we have a bad record and that the system does not work. I want to record my rejection of both those contentions. I also want to take this opportunity to record the respect felt by all Conservative Members for the work done over the past 21 years by the HSE. I am sorry that its work is not recognised by the Labour party.
I remind the House that fatal injuries among employees, the self-employed and the public fell from 499 in 1986–87 to 381 in 1994–95. Fatal injuries per 100,000 employees in all industries fell from 2.8 in the year the HSE began its work to 0.9 last year—the lowest rate ever recorded. That is not a record of failure and ineptitude; it is a record of success, and substantially under this Government. Fatal injury rates in the construction industry are at their lowest on record—again, not the record of failure that the Opposition portray for the HSE. In the mines, the rate for fatal injuries is less than half the rate in the year that the HSE began its work—again, not a history of failure.
The Labour party is obsessed by the railways. I look forward to using them more in future, especially as the fatal injury rate for employees has fallen from 18.7 to 7.7 per 100,000 employees—a very low rate indeed. Those are not records of failure; they are records of success.

Mr. Clapham: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the contribution of employees through their safety committees has played an important part in reducing accident rates?

Mr. Butler: I accept that the habit of safety, to which I shall refer later, is extremely important, not just among employees but among employers. However, I reject the suggestion by the hon. Member for Blackley that small businesses do not seem to know that they are required to have health and safety policies. That is not my experience of the excellent small businesses that I have visited in

Milton Keynes, nor do I believe it to be generally true. It is an unfortunate slur on the major providers of new employment.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the last year alone, the HSE has issued more than 10,000 notices and dealt with many thousands of cases? The trend in the level of accidents is downwards.

Mr. Butler: I confirm what my hon. Friend says and I congratulate the HSE on its success—a success that has been enabled by the policies of this Government.
For the Opposition motion to be at all credible, we would have to believe that the Government were doing a complete volte face—or, to use the Opposition's expression, a U-turn—and suddenly neglecting the very issue on which they have been so successful.

Mr. Eastham: The hon. Gentleman took me to task for suggesting that there were not proper health and safety statements. Under the heading "Failure to write a health and safety policy", an article in "The Perfect Crime" states:
Since the end of May, Jeffrey Hughes, the warehouse transport manager, has been given the additional responsibility for health and safety. He told the Health and Safety Executive that there is not a current health and safety policy for the company as far as I am aware.

Mr. Butler: The fact that there is one thief does not make everyone a thief, and the fact that one small business is identified as being without a policy does not justify the hon. Gentleman's general attack on small businesses. That is perhaps the Opposition's knee-jerk reaction to the very companies that provide employment.
I should like to draw attention to the deceitful nature of the motion's wording. It refers to accidents causing more than 30,000 deaths and major injuries. Why have those categories been lumped together? The answer is that there have been fewer than 400 deaths, and if the Opposition motion had made that clear, the success of the Government's policies on health and safety would have been obvious. Instead of making it obvious, they obfuscate and run the figures together to hide the fact that the number of deaths is at an all-time low. There is no prevarication, no ifs and buts, no allowing for this or that, no on the one hand or the other about the matter. The number of deaths is at a straightforward, all-time low, and the Opposition have tried to hide it in the wording of their motion.
The Opposition also refer to the fact that more than 138,000 injuries involved three or more days off work in 1994–95. The House will be interested to know that, on Second Reading on the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Bill, on 3 April 1974—today is almost its anniversary—the then Secretary of State for Employment said that 1,000 people had been killed, 500,000 had been injured and 23 million working days had been lost through injury. To reach anything like those figures, each of the accidents to which the motion refers would have to result in about 137 working days being lost. The Opposition are attempting to hide the success of the health and safety policies over the past many years.
The Robens report said that the


discussion on health and safety at work should play as prominent a part in our debates as should discussion about industrial relations".
With the greatest respect, he was wrong. Health and safety now properly plays a much larger part in our discussions than debates on historical facts about bad industrial relations.
The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 gave the Health and Safety Commission what was described as "sharper, longer and tougher teeth". I think that since then there has been some capping, a little bit of dental work and the odd bridge here and there, if I may use the sort of terminology that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is likely to use in his winding-up speech. The effect is that the commission can still chew and take a firm grip where necessary.
The Bill was of course introduced by the Conservatives, and adds to our record on health and safety, to which my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) referred, which includes the first Factory Acts and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, which was relatively new when the Bill was passed. The Conservative Bill was resurrected by Labour when it surprisingly took power. I was going to say that it was supported by both the Liberals present on Second Reading in 1974 and that that was exactly twice the number of Liberals present in this debate, but the one Liberal Democrat who was present left about five minutes after the debate started.

Mr. Etherington: No one tonight has mentioned the fact behind the Robens committee that led to the 1974 Act. The committee was set up as part of our obligations to the European Community under the treaty of Rome, and led to one of the biggest advances in safety legislation in this country. One or two hon. Members have said tonight that the EC is all negative. Safety legislation was one area in which Britain had a little catching up to do, and I was grateful that the 1974 Act achieved it.

Mr. Butler: I have waited for many things since I was elected in April 1992, and one of them has been to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman. Although I agree with him, the Bill was still a Conservative piece of legislation, which was picked up and passed, with minor amendments, by the incoming Labour Government. I hope never to see an incoming Labour Government.
I represented companies that were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive and also represented injured individuals whose employers were subsequently prosecuted. I always found the Health and Safety Executive very reasonable and extraordinarily fair and helpful. It did not drop any of its cases against my clients, so my comment is not self-serving.
Every accident could have been avoided; that is certainly true. Unfortunately, it does not follow from that that we can guarantee an accident-free future, because the future never exactly replicates the past. I dealt with cases as diverse, for example, as a man whose legs were crushed by a fore-loader, a man who was killed as a result of electrocution from an overhead power line where the proper safety regulations had not been applied, and a child who was injured by a bursting balloon which ripped the skin from the eyeball.
I also dealt with a matter that may ring a bell with my hon. Friend the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency which involved an act of stupidity.
In the basement of a house that was being rebuilt, the employer ran an electric cable down a steel pipe which was thus used as a conduit. The employer painted it red and hung signs on it, but that did not prevent an employee from taking an angle grinder and cutting through it until he was electrocuted and, unfortunately, killed. To be fair to the Minister, it is true to say that stupidity, regrettably, often plays a part. It is no good pretending otherwise if we are to take the subject seriously.
I would like to see a world in which there are no prosecutions under health and safety at work legislation because there is no need to have any, as a result of there being no accidents and as a result of everybody taking the proper precautions. On that basis, I again reject the Opposition's contention that, if there are not enough prosecutions, it must prove that the resources are inadequate and that the effort is lacking. I do not accept that at all.
I move now to a point that is common ground—the habit of safety, which is extraordinarily important and which starts in schools and in the home. I would like to praise the work of Hazard Alley in Milton Keynes. Schoolchildren can see, set up in a building, home situations, road situations and work situations. They can see apparent accidents happening and as they watch, unexpected things happen. It can be quite a traumatic experience. I have spoken to many children who have visited Hazard Alley—my own children have been there—and have found that without exception, they are impressed and alerted to the fact that safety is not only their shared responsibility, but something that is not guaranteed.
I have already said that hidden, slightly deceitfully, in the Opposition motion is the fact that fewer than 400 people were killed at work last year, although that is almost 400 too many. In the same year, just under 4,000 people were killed in accidents in the home; it is right to keep those figures in proportion. I commend Hazard Alley and similar schemes that are springing up elsewhere.
As the habit of safety grows, it is surely no more than common sense that the Health and Safety Executive should re-prioritise. As the habit of safety grows, there is no need to do some of the basic work that used to be necessary. There is now an accepted view that safety is everybody's duty, not just the employer's. It is not sufficient to have in place wonderful systems that no one follows, which mean that when the HSE visits, the employer can produce the booklet, the leaflet, the follow-up and the committee minutes. Nor is it just a matter of the employee's duty. Hon. Members have referred to the Victorian employer who takes people on, does not care about their safety and leaves it up to them, and who believes that, if there is an accident, it is the employee's fault. Safety is the duty of the employer and the employee, and it is also the duty of all of us.
From my experience as a director of a safety company, I know that the customer's interest is no longer what used to be called CATNIP—the cheapest available technology not involving prosecution. That used to be the case some years ago, but the interest now is, "How safe and efficient can I as an employer become?" or "How safe and efficient can I as an employee become at my place of work?" The House would commend and wish to support that as fully as possible.
If the Opposition motion was right about the need


to reverse deregulation initiatives that"—
which should be "which"—
threaten health and safety standards",
we would all support it. However, the deregulation proposals do not threaten health and safety standards and will not threaten them.
I pray in aid the fact that the deregulatory proposals come from the Health and Safety Commission, which in 1993–94 conducted a review of health and safety legislation with the aim of simplifying and clarifying the law. The proposals were intended to reduce the burdens on business, especially on small firms, but at the same time to improve enforcement practice. That comprehensive review recommended that about 100 regulations and seven pieces of primary legislation not only could, but should, be removed; that there should be new simplified regulations for reporting accidents—that comes into effect at the end of this week; several measures to reduce the sheer drudgery of paperwork; an enforcement policy statement to ensure consistent enforcement by local authorities—many hon. Members will have experienced one local authority taking one view and the neighbouring authority another; and a complete review of the commission's guidance documents, which hon. Members will be interested to know amounted to 650 separate publications. That review is under way.
Unfortunately, time is against me. I end by recalling that not only are more people in work than ever before but that they work in a safer and healthier workplace environment than ever before. That is the measure of the Government's commitment over many years. That is a continuing commitment. I urge the House to support the Government amendment.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Hon. Members have talked about private industry and nationalised industry. I do not care what industry an individual works for; every man, woman or young person going out to do an honest day's work should be given every opportunity to work in a safe and healthy environment. That is not happening in every industry.
I was fortunate enough in the 1960s to get an apprenticeship as a metal worker. I worked in engineering until I came into the House. I remember looking forward to the day that I went into the factory. It was a great experience for me. It was not long—it was in the first few weeks—before I realised that working for a living in engineering was dangerous. The eyes of people who stood too near the electric welder were damaged by ultraviolet rays. People who worked at the guillotine without due care and attention could easily lose fingers. Some of my fellow apprentices were damaged by working with such machinery. Spot-welders could have their hands burned and scarred. Sometimes, young apprentices were required by the employer to carry weights that 15 or 16-year-olds should not have lifted. That happens today in our factories.
The women in our factory were exposed to chemicals that gave them dermatitis. There was vermin infestation that meant that, if sandwiches were left in the wrong place, they could be eaten or tampered with by rats or mice, and that people went without decent food that day.
I remember working with asbestos. As a young apprentice, I thought that it was better to work with asbestos because it gave off only a white powder instead of the oily metals that clung to our clothes. Little did I know that I was not only endangering my health but that my mother could have easily inhaled asbestos dust when I took my boiler suit home.
Hon. Members who understand the dangers of inhaling asbestos know that asbestosis manifests itself 20 or 30 years after inhalation. The Thatcher era saw the decline of engineering and the closure of many factories. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance to the men and women who are only now showing the signs of having inhaled asbestos. Because of liquidation or bankruptcy, many of their former employers are no longer around. Some mischievous employers have even changed their addresses, so as deliberately to stall claims arising from asbestosis.
As the Minister knows, few doctors will conclusively state when they examine someone for a post mortem, that the man or woman died from asbestos inhalation. That means that claims can often be lost because the family does not have on the death certificate the fact that the person died of asbestosis. It might be argued that the person died of heart failure, kidney failure or whatever. I feel strongly that, in view of all the factory closures, people experiencing asbestosis now should still be able to claim from their old employers.
Some hon. Members have talked about how death rates and accident rates have dropped. I do not have the statistics before me, but I have some common sense, and that tells me that, when 3 million men and women are sitting at home not working in factories or on construction sites, there are bound to be 3 million fewer people being exposed to the problems that employment brings with it. It is all very well for Conservative Members to say that the number of injuries and deaths has dropped, but they must also realise that an awful lot of people do not have a job.
Much has been said about the construction industry. When I was elected to the House in 1979, the vast majority of people in the construction industry had an employer, but nowadays joiners, slaters, plasterers, electricians and the practitioners of every other trade on the building site are 714 operators. When the Minister starts quoting statistics he must know that many of the 714 operators do not report injuries sustained on the building site.
We all know that, when an injury is sustained—back strain or a bone injury, perhaps—the damage may not be noticed until a few months later. There may be no report of an injury on the day, yet the worker, who may be on another building site by then, or even out of work, may suffer from it three or four months later.
Time is against me—the winding-up speeches must start now—so I shall finish by saying that I want good legislation that protects every worker throughout the country to be introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) mentioned the hotel industry, but almost every industry has its danger spots—even caring industries such as the health service. Even those who work in hospital kitchens and nurses can sometimes be exposed to dangerous gases. The Minister will know that even an operating theatre can be a dangerous place if there is any neglect or carelessness.
Every man or woman who goes out in the morning to work for a day's pay should get good health and safety facilities, and the House should always be here to ensure that those facilities are backed up by legislation.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I shall wind up on behalf of the Opposition this evening. The opening speech of the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency should get the annual award for sophistry.
The Minister did two things: first, he tried to identify statistics, but they did not compare like with like and, secondly, the only example that he could give of the saving of lives and resources was not a deregulation issue but a regulation issue. It involved an area where the Government took out regulations to introduce hard hats. As a consequence of regulating, not deregulating, 20 lives—and £17 million—was saved. The point of that story is simple: deregulation costs lives and resources; regulation saves lives and resources.
The Government's defence of cuts in health and safety was based on the premise not of deregulation but of regulation. The leaked documents were a cry for help to the Opposition—they showed that the Government, in private, were decimating the resources of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. The Government were decimating resources and forcing a change in culture—which will lead to an increase in accidents, injuries and deaths over the next decade.
There have been 400 deaths, 50,000 major injuries and 130,000 days lost through injuries resulting in three days or more off work. That is not a record of which the Government should be proud. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) said, it is not an excuse to start dismantling large sections of the health and safety legislation.
What were the key messages from the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission? He said that the commission could not meet the expectations of it and the requirements placed on it by the Government, Parliament and the courts, that the pressure from Parliament and the public about safety standards in new privatised industries had to be met, and that the Government's current expenditure levels cannot meet those new safety requirements. The HSC had a disagreement with the Government about deregulation being about assisting business. It took the opposite view—it does not accept that health and safety is about reducing burdens in business or that health and safety assists small and medium-sized businesses.
There was major criticism of the Deputy Prime Minister and the deregulation task force, which seems to be out of control and responsible to no one but itself. It is putting relentless pressure on the Health and Safety Executive to do away with large parts of the safety regulations, and to do so away from the public gaze and outside public accountability. That would disrupt the work of the commission, the executive and those who work in the front line on behalf of the executive.
A second report was released to the Labour party. It was based on a meeting of 13 March 1996—only a few days ago. Members of the executive and the commission met to consider the consequences of the Government's proposed cuts in the next three Budget rounds—1996, 1997 and 1998 through to 1999. Page 13 of the report

gives the lie to the Minister's case that they are a Government of risk assessment. A Government of risk assessment would not reduce resources to the front-line troops. Page 13 states:
I have to say that the scope for further efficiency savings looks limited. We have therefore had to accept, with reluctance, that the size of the field force can no longer be protected.
The safety officers at the sharp end have said that they can no longer be protected. The report continues:
Our strategy for coping with the PES 96 therefore embodies a reduction in the number of Field Operations Division inspectors. This will be reflected in reduced activity, including fewer preventative inspections.
The whole risk assessment strategy of the Minister is in tatters. Officers cannot maintain preventive inspections, which means that they cannot maintain risk assessments.
Even worse, the report gives the Government a way of fiddling statistics. It says that discussions will take place in a short while between Ministers, the commission and the executive to find a new formula for maintaining statistics in order to "maintain public confidence", despite the reduction in resources and field activity.
The Government have fiddled unemployment figures 30 times. That is one thing, but to sit down in private to work out a system to fiddle health and safety figures is a scandal that should be exposed. The Minister should make a public commitment that that proposal will never see the light of day, whether it be proposed by the commission or by the deregulation task force.
The cuts come at a time when the Health and Safety Commission and Executive have been forced by the Government's deregulation policies to spend more than £1 million on private consultancies while cutting real resources at the sharp end. It is unacceptable and appalling that, when millions of pounds have been cut from the budget, they are being forced to commercialise and to privatise front-line activities.
The leaked memorandum sets out in detail the damage posed by further cuts in the budget for agricultural inspectors. When the memorandum was written, the Government knew about the 10 deaths from Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease and the link with BSE, yet they still proposed to impose draconian cuts on agricultural inspectors in the Health and Safety Executive.
On page 85 of the annual report of the Health and Safety Commission released in November 1985, there is an interesting paragraph about agricultural inspectors:
agricultural inspector numbers reduced to 169 in line with plans to redeploy some posts to other work. This followed a workload analysis taking into account accident rates, reduction in employment in farming and competing demands of other sectors.
However, that was a serious overestimate of the number of agricultural inspectors operating in the field. Indeed, it is a total misrepresentation to the House of the true picture.
I have reliable information from inside the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive that only 78 inspectors are dealing with the agriculture industry. In the past few days, civil servants have been scurrying about Whitehall trying to concoct excuses for that gross manipulation of the Health and Safety Commission annual report to Parliament, just in case the Opposition receive a leak to show that that part seriously misrepresented the number of inspectors. I must tell the Minister of State that his efforts are too late. We already have the information from deep in the heart of the Health and Safety Commission.
The annual report goes even further than misrepresentation to Parliament. Ministers in the House tonight and in the other place have been complacent about inspectors in agriculture. Agriculture has one of the worst records on death and injury of any sector in the British economy. Fifty-four people were killed last year—an increase of 32 per cent. on 1993–94. That makes farm work the number one killer of workers, even worse than the construction industry.
According to the Health and Safety Executive, four out of 10 farmers have reported health problems directly caused by their work. As a result of the cuts, farms are now likely to be inspected only once in 30 years. The average fine for a serious criminal offence is only about £3,000, but in agriculture it is dramatically less—£500—and sometimes as little as £100.
The Minister complained earlier this year that I was harassing Ministers and the Health and Safety Commission by asking many wide-ranging questions about the Health and Safety Executive. Some of the answers were very revealing. Planned inspections by the commission fell by 5,400. Since 1979, the number of specialist doctors and nurses has fallen from 177 to 103—a cut of more than 40 per cent.
In March 1995, a report on asbestosis stated that there would be 3,000 deaths a year, on average, from cancers caused by exposure to asbestos. Despite those findings, the Department of Trade and Industry—I assume with the cognisance of Ministers at the Department of the Environment—is allowing trade in natural asbestos products for the construction industry. Some 60,000 tonnes have been imported into the United Kingdom, and a further 7,000 tonnes will be allowed in at a cost of more than £41 million.
One Department predicts a huge increase in the number of deaths from asbestosis, while another Department continues the trade in death by allowing huge quantities of asbestos to be used in the United Kingdom construction industry. It is not simply Westminster council that deals in asbestos: the heart of Government are allowing the importation of ridiculous quantities of asbestos, which will lead to further deaths and injuries.
The budget cuts are devastating—£17.7 million between 1997 and 1999—yet the Health and Safety Commission will be asked to do new work costing £18 million during the same period. There have already been cuts worth £7.8 million and, as a consequence, field officers have lost their jobs. As I have said, the number of inspections has decreased and the HSC has said that it cannot meet its legal obligations to Parliament and to the courts.
The truth is that the Government are prepared to put tax cuts before safety. They are prepared not only to undermine safety and their credibility on safety issues through their deregulation proposals, but to undermine the ability of the Health and Safety Executive to ensure continuity in health, injury prevention and occupational health and to target those areas of industry where health and safety problems remain chillingly high.
The situation with nuclear privatisation, as stated in the report, is even worse. It beggars belief, but it is true. Page 9 of the report states there will be a reduction of eight

inspectors in the nuclear inspectorate, and that that reduction will increase to 12. The same will happen to the petroleum and offshore inspectorates. There are to be 12 fewer inspectors for offshore installations by 2000.
Following the Piper Alpha disaster, the Government gave a commitment that such disasters would never occur again yet, in the privacy of reports, they are prepared to not only cut resources to the Health and Safety Executive, but to force it to reduce the number of inspectors working on offshore installations.
Those cuts are not acceptable in any circumstances. The Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission believe wholeheartedly in the development of strategies to prevent illness and injury at work and, as a consequence, the documents have been leaked to ensure that there is a vibrant debate about what the Government say in public and what they do in private, which is to cut resources, deregulate and undermine health and safety regimes.
It seems unbelievable but, in February this year, a company called Duke Power was interviewed by the Department of Trade and Industry with a view to its buying the British nuclear industry. The company subsequently admitted involvement in "silence for money deals", whereby workers would receive payments in return for keeping quiet about potential safety hazards. How could a Government who purport to be serious about health and safety even entertain the idea of such a company purchasing our nuclear industry?
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) stated clearly the position with regard to gas. The Minister would not accept the figures produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and other colleagues regarding mining safety. The Health and Safety Executive issued figures to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) showing that, between April to September 1994 and April to September 1995, there was a 17 per cent. increase in major injuries in the privatised coal industry.
In January this year, I asked the Minister whether he would
require private coal companies to publish, at regular intervals, detailed statistics relating to the number and types of serious reportable accidents, sustained by (a) directly employed and (b) contract workers.

Sir Paul Beresford: No."—[Official Report, 17 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 602.]
What does the Minister have to hide? What does the privatised industry have to hide? Why cannot it produce publicly figures relating to accidents at work?
The truth is that deregulation, under this Government, is out of control. It is the canker at the heart of the Government. They deregulated the labour market and created mass unemployment. Under this Government, people can lose their jobs and homes. If the Government get their way and deregulate the HSE, people will lose their health as well.
This debate has shown that the Government are prepared to take risks with people's lives but not to take responsibility for that. When it came to arms to Iraq, the Government blamed my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). BSE, it seems, is all the fault of the consumer. Today, the Minister said that accidents at work are the fault of stupid workers.
The truth is that the fault lies with the Government and their policies of deregulation and budget cutting. I therefore ask my hon. Friends to support the motion and defend the right of workers not to be injured or killed by cowboy employers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): This has been a wide-ranging debate. We are all agreed, it seems, that we would like there to be no accidents. Although the accident rate is declining, however, accidents continue to happen.
Since 1974, the fatal injury rate for employees has dropped dramatically. It is currently the lowest on record; indeed, the United Kingdom's health and safety record is among the best in the world. It is certainly better than the records of all our major EC partners. The EC is learning from us, and well it might. Members of the Health and Safety Executive are in Brussels helping the Community to adopt the right approach to health and safety—not the approach that the Labour party has adopted.
I was rather disgusted by the Labour motion. It talks of 30,000 deaths and major injuries, but it fails to distinguish—rather insensitive, this—between the 381 deaths of self-employed and members of the public and the statistics for major injuries. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) says that I am wrong. If so, why did he not get the wording of the motion right in the first place?
The Opposition motion also fails to mention the fact that the HSE has reduced the number of fatal injuries to employees by more than half since 1981, or that the number of major industrial injuries has fallen by more than 15 per cent. since 1986–87. Furthermore, it fails to mention that the number of injuries to self-employed people involving three or more lost working days has dropped by more than 21,000 since 1986–87.
Since 1979, the HSE has presided over a steady decline in the number of work-related accidents and fatalities. The fatal injury rate is now less than a quarter the rate in the early 1960s, half that of the 1970s, and 20 per cent. lower than that of the mid-1980s. As the Minister of State pointed out earlier, the road accident figures provide a useful comparison. In the year ending September 1979, 6,633 people were killed on the roads, 46,115 were seriously injured, and 265,022 were slightly injured—giving a grand total of 314,800. That puts the matter into perspective.

Mr. Eastham: If the Minister is keen to put matters in perspective regarding serious injuries and deaths in industry, does he recognise that we now have virtually no mines or shipbuilding, we have only half the engineering industry that we had in the past, and these 400,000 building workers are without jobs? Does that not mean fewer accidents?

Sir Paul Beresford: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman missed the point, although I repeated it. I was talking about the rate. In mining, although the work force has dropped to about 25 per cent. of what it was, the number of fatal accidents has fallen to 15 per cent. so there has been a dramatic improvement in safety.
The HSE inspectors are responsible for enforcing health and safety legislation in more than 650,000 business establishments, ranging from offshore oil rigs to mines,

factories, farms and fairgrounds. Two of my hon. Friends stressed the importance of attitude of mind and a culture for safety. The attitude problem really belongs to the Labour party, which is looking towards total regulation. To use the same analogies as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler)—they were slightly familiar to me as they were dental ones—Labour Members are so bound up with regulation that they will give themselves, if not the country, lockjaw.
The Government fully recognise the importance of the task of the HSE and provide the necessary resources. Hon. Members will be interested to know that there are more than 30 additional HSE inspectors than there were on 1 April 1979.

Mr. Ian McCartney: What about doctors and nurses?

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman asks about doctors and nurses. They were mentioned twice. He is right to say that the number of Medical Advisory Service doctors and nurses has been reduced. That decision followed an internal review which recommended greater use of contract professional staff. In addition, the HSE ran a recruitment campaign in January, leading to several new MAS doctors being appointed.

Mr. McCartney: In answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister told me that the number of doctors had been reduced because more work had been passed on to nurses. I then asked how many more nurses had been employed, and the answer was that nursing staff had also been cut. The Government reduced the number of doctors and gave their work to nurses. Having transferred the work to nurses, they then cut the number of nurses.

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman failed to take into account the number of contract doctors and nurses who were brought in, some of whom were specialists.
Inspectors work predominantly through co-operation—something that the hon. Gentleman appears not to understand—in work activities. They advise and persuade at the workplace and use formal enforcement action only as a last resort. Inspectors do not go looking for criminals, as the Labour party seems to want them to do, nor are they anxious to enforce over-trivial matters. That is a sensible and cost-effective use of the inspectors, who are highly trained, capable professional staff.
The approach follows the principle of proportionality—that legal remedies should be used only when they are justified and according to the hazards and risks involved. When there is justification, there is no hesitation by the inspectors. They take firm action. They have extensive powers to do so. In 1994–95, the HSE issued 10,751 enforcement notices and took 1,789 prosecutions. The combination of the inspectors' expertise, professionalism, flexibility and discretion means that industry has considerable respect for the HSE and works in partnership with it.
The Health and Safety Executive uses a wide range of techniques to supplement the traditional inspector's visit. It approaches large national companies to promote system changes to management and health and safety across the country. It uses mail shots and undertakes other educational work. It issues some 7 million free publications each year. It runs workshops and seminars to


explain what must be legally done at the workplace and how inspectors carry out work. It collaborates with intermediaries such as training and enterprise councils and chambers of commerce, and generally has gained access to a wide net of employers.
In short, the HSE inspectors have concentrated on activities that present a high risk to workers and/or the public, and have sought to use their time in the most effective way. They have developed a progressive partnership—I know that that is a buzz word at present, but it works—with industry and the work force, building up a preventive attitude. That is much the most cost-effective way of proceeding.
In recent years, of course, the number of preventive inspections has been falling, but the number of investigations in response to complaints or incidents has been rising. I say "of course" because there is no secret about it: the trends have been explained in the commissioners' plan of work in the annual report, which has been laid before the House. There is no mystery of what is happening.
The HSE is using new techniques to assist and encourage businesses to fulfil their obligations. There are ever-growing demands for investigations and advice, but that demonstrates a positive attitude to the HSE on the part of industry. Inspections take longer because they are carried out in more depth, and because new legislation must be explained carefully to employers and workers. There is no conceivable cause for concern. The enforcement strategy is working, as the accident figures show.
The chairman and leading commissioners visited me at the Department. The chairman was accompanied by representatives from the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry and small businesses. They assured me personally that the HSE had adequate resources for the year ahead, enabling it to meet its obligations and priorities. I have received no advice for the years beyond that, and the letter that has been referred to has not surfaced—it has not been seen. When any letter arrives it will be read very carefully. As the hon. Member for Makerfield knows, however, pleading poverty is a normal enough negotiating tactic. As many hon. Members who have been in local government will be aware, it is exactly what should be expected.
The commission and executive have made considerable efficiency gains over the past few years. They deserve credit for that; they do not deserve to be derided, as they were this evening. They need encouragement to continue. We must not let up in our drive to maximise value for money. There is no merit in just throwing money at the problem, however worthy the presentation of continued regulation by Opposition Members.
Opposition Members have also derided the deregulation unit, but it has been very useful to a number of groups, including the HSE. It has provided good advice and lateral thinking, and has now developed a close, effective working relationship with the HSC.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I have a paper which says the opposite.

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman seems to feel that a paper that he has, which I do not have, says the

opposite. I have seen the results, and they are quite different. He is, however, right to draw attention to the Government's drive towards greater efficiency. Business efficiency is a priority.
I am glad to have the opportunity to identify the part that effective management of health and safety plays. In the past five years, the coal mining industry has undergone major changes, but the accident rate per 100,000 employees has fallen. Great improvements have also been made in productivity: between 1985–86 and December 1994, overall output per man shift rose from 2.72 tonnes to 13.5 tonnes. It is nonsense to suggest that, by encouraging business efficiency, we put the health and safety of employees at risk.
The hon. Member for Makerfield has much to learn about health and safety, as he showed towards the end of last year when we were considering some woefully out-of-date and unnecessary legislation relating to home workers. He tells us that he is against deregulation; yet he tried to persuade a Committee to stop removing outdated law relating to feather sorting, fur pulling, the making of iron and steel cables and chains and the making of steel anchors and grapples.
The HSE has adequate funds to promote, efficiently, health and safety in this country, bearing in mind the work needed to make us a competitive nation. I ask the House to support the Government amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 266. Noes 284.

Division No. 87]
[21.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Allen, Graham
Campbell-Savours, D N


Alton, David
Canavan, Dennis


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cann, Jamie


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Chidgey, David


Armstrong, Hilary
Church, Judith


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clapham, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Austin-Walker, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barnes, Harry
Clelland, David


Barron, Kevin
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Battle, John
Coffey, Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Connarty, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bell, Stuart
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbett, Robin


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bermingham, Gerald
Corston, Jean


Berry, Roger
Cousins, Jim


Betts, Clive
Cummings, John


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blunkett, David
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Boateng, Paul
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Dalyell, Tam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Darling, Alistair


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davidson, Ian


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Burden, Richard
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Byers, Stephen
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Caborn, Richard
Denham, John


Callaghan, Jim
Dewar, Donald






Dixon, Don
Litherland, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Livingstone, Ken


Donohoe, Brian H
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dowd, Jim
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Loyden, Eddie


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lynne, Ms Liz


Eastham, Ken
McAllion, John


Etherington, Bill
McAvoy, Thomas


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McCartney, Ian


Fatchett, Derek
McCartney, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
Macdonald, Calum


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McFall, John


Flynn, Paul
McKelvey, William


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
McLeish, Henry


Foulkes, George
McMaster, Gordon


Fyfe, Maria
MacShane, Denis


Galbraith, Sam
McWilliam, John


Galloway, George
Madden, Max


Gapes, Mike
Maddock, Diana


George, Bruce
Mahon, Alice


Gerrard, Neil
Marek, Dr John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Godsiff, Roger
Martin, Michael J (Springbum)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Martlew, Eric


Gordon, Mildred
Maxton, John


Graham, Thomas
Meacher, Michael


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michael, Alun


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gunnell, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hall, Mike
Milbum, Alan


Hanson, David
Miller, Andrew


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Harvey, Nick
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morley, Elliot


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Heppell, John
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hinchliffe, David
Mudie, George


Hodge, Margaret
Mullin, Chris


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Paul


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Hara, Edward


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Olner, Bill


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
O'Neill, Martin


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Hoyle, Doug
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pike, Peter L


Hutton, John
Pope, Greg


Illsley, Eric
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ingram, Adam
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jamieson, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Janner, Greville
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rendel, David


Jowell, Tessa
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Keen, Alan
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Rogers, Allan


Khabra, Piara S
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rowlands, Ted


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Terry
Sedgemore, Brian


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Sheerman, Barry





Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Timms, Stephen


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tipping, Paddy


Short, Clare
Touhig, Don


Simpson, Alan
Trickett, Jon


Skinner, Dennis
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wallace, James


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Walley, Joan


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


(Belfast S)
Wareing, Robert N


Soley, Clive
Watson, Mike


Spearing, Nigel
Wicks, Malcolm



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Spellar, John
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wilson, Brian


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wise, Audrey


Steinberg, Gerry
Worthington, Tony


Stevenson, George
Wray, Jimmy


Stott, Roger
Wright, Dr Tony


Straw, Jack
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sutcliffe, Gerry



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)
Mr. Joe Benton and


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coe, Sebastian


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Colvin, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Congdon, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arbuthnot, James
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Couchman, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cran, James


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Day, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Devlin, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bates, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Batiste, Spencer
Dover, Den


Bellingham, Henry
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bendall, Vivian
Dunn, Bob


Beresford, Sir Paul
Durant, Sir Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Elletson, Harold


Booth, Hartley
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Boswell, Tim
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bowis, John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evennett, David


Brazier, Julian
Faber, David


Bright, Sir Graham
Fabricant, Michael


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Browning, Mrs Angela
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Fishburn, Dudley


Burns, Simon
Forman, Nigel


Butcher, John
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Butler, Peter
Forth, Eric


Butterfill, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carrington, Matthew
French, Douglas


Carttiss, Michael
Fry, Sir Peter


Cash, William
Gale, Roger


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Gallie, Phil


Churchill, Mr
Gardiner, Sir George


Clappison, James
Gamier, Edward


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gill, Christopher


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Gillan, Cheryl


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair






Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mates, Michael


Gorst, Sir John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Grylls, Sir Michael
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Norris, Steve


Hawkins, Nick
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hawksley, Warren
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Ottaway, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Page, Richard


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hendry, Charles
Patten, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Pawsey, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Horam, John
Pickles, Eric


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Richards, Rod


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knapman, Roger
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sims, Roger


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Legg, Barry
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lidington, David
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Lord, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Luff, Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew
Stephen, Michael


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Stem, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sumberg, David


Malone, Gerald
Sweeney, Walter


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marshall, John (Hendon, South)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)





Temple-Morris, Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Thomason, Roy
Watts, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whitney, Ray


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


Thumham, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Wilkinson, John


Tracey, Richard
Willetts, David


Tredinnick, David
Wilshire, David


Trend, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'id)


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wolfson, Mark


Viggers, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Yeo, Tim


Walden, George
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Ward, John
Mr. Derek Conway and


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Dr. Laim Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to maintaining standards of health and safety at work, whilst removing unnecessary burdens on business; endorses the Health and Safety Commission and Executive's role of assisting and educating business in its duty to assess risk and take action accordingly; and approves the rigorous approach which the Government takes to improving efficiency and effectiveness in all areas of public service.

RATING AND VALUATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

That the draft Electricity Supply Industry and Water Undertakers (Rateable Values) Amendment Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.—[Mr. Wells.]

Question agreed to.

DEREGULATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No.14A (Consideration of draft deregulation orders).

That the draft Deregulation (Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868) Order 1996, which was laid before the House on 19th February, be approved.[Mr. Wells.]

Question agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No.22 (Periodic adjournments).

That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 3rd April, do adjourn till Tuesday 16th April.—[Mr. Wells.]

Question agreed to.

Greenock Prison

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Minister will not be surprised to learn that the subject of this debate was prompted by the recent publication of the report of the chief inspector of prisons, C. B. Fairweather, on Her Majesty's prison, Greenock. I want to ask the Minister a few questions, and I will begin here and now. Why are the chief inspectors of the Prison Service drawn from outwith the service, quite unlike the practice in the police and fire services?
The chief inspector's report is decidedly unsympathetic to the management and staff at the prison. I remind the Minister that, when Mr. Fairweather and his colleagues carried out their inspection in November last year, Greenock—a small local prison—was the most overcrowded prison in Scotland. As the chief inspector observes in paragraph 5.1 of his report:
Greenock is designed to hold 172 prisoners in single cell accommodation though on the first full day of our inspection (Monday 12 November 1995) the population at lock-up was 249 (which represented 45 per cent. overcrowding)".
Chief Inspector Fairweather should have added that the governor and his staff were and are quite literally running two prisons in one. That has come about because of the unfortunate mix of prisoners in the prison. In my view, criticism should always be even-handed—or, at the very least, balanced by an acknowledgment of the difficulties experienced by those being subjected to criticism. Chief Inspector Fairweather should take that on board.
The Minister and the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, Mr. Frizell, know that I visit Gateside from time to time. I formally opened the summer fete at the prison two years ago. It was a huge success, with more than 1,000 local people coming into the prison, but not a single prisoner leaving on an unscheduled departure ticket. Last year's fete was opened by a very good friend of mine, Provost Alan Robertson, who is also well known to the Minister. That, too, was a success. Despite the fact that I was not invited to last year's fete, I still hold the governor and his staff in deep respect. I do not know why I was not invited, but the Minister and I know that that sort of thing happens to elected representatives.
In fairness to the governor, Dan Gunn, I must say that he persuaded me to think again about the advisability of employing women prison officers in male prisons. I readily admit that I have long argued that women should not be allowed to work on the deck of a trawler or in a male prison. Now, after my education by the governor, I readily acknowledge that it makes good sense to employ women officers in male prisons. What steps have been taken to recruit more women prison officers to serve in male prisons, and how many trainee governors have been recruited in each of the past three years?
As the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), is present, I want to say that I do not for one moment advocate that women should work on our trawlers. There are sticking points for old reactionaries like me.
The prison in Greenock enjoys good relations with the local community. Not so long ago, some legitimate concerns were raised with me by the residents of Nimmo

Street, which backs on to the prison. In fairness to prison staff, I think that those problems were, by and large, dealt with to the qualified satisfaction of my constituents in that street. Life is now a good deal easier for them.
I turn to the distressing issue of suicides at Greenock prison. I have been critical of Chief Inspector Fairweather, and, spotting the beam in my eye, prison staff were upset and angry at my comments that were reported in the Greenock Telegraph, following the suicides of two young prisoners within 24 hours. When I met a number of prison officers, they were not slow in telling me of their anger and distress at my comments. As they say in Glasgow, they did not miss me and hit the wall.
I readily acknowledge that individuals who are determined to take their own lives can sometimes obscure that fatalistic intent from others, which of course includes prison officers and doctors. A psychiatrist to whom I recently spoke said that it is not always possible to detect those who are intent on taking their own lives.
Chief Inspector Fairweather says in paragraph 3.15 of his report:
There had been a total of five suicides at the prison since our last inspection, three of them by hanging within the last eight months. There had also been a very recent serious attempted suicide which, but for the quick reactions of staff, could have been fatal.
This alarming upsurge in suicide in such a relatively small prison should nevertheless be viewed against background statistics which indicate a trebling of the suicide rate in 1994 amongst prisoners throughout Scotland. This in turn mirrors the fact that suicide is now the second most common cause of death amongst the young male population in Scotland.
In paragraph 3.17, he adds:
We felt that suicide awareness among all staff was good and as comprehensive as any we had seen elsewhere, but it is clear that staff intervention is only possible when suicidal intent is being signalled. Regrettably, there are still occasions when individuals will take their own lives without warning to staff or other prisoners.
That is an eminently fair observation of the distressing state of affairs.
With Mr. Fairweather and his colleagues, I too await with interest the report that the Prison Service has commissioned from Professor Gunn of the London Institute of Psychiatry into the service's suicide prevention strategy and the rising trend of suicide in our prisons. Will the Minister ensure that hon. Members are given ready access to that report when he receives it? When does he expect to receive it? Everything possible must be done to dissuade the mainly young prisoners who are prone to suicide from carrying out their distressing intent.
Mr. Fairweather's report makes numerous recommendations, which I sincerely hope the Scottish Prison Service and the Minister will treat sympathetically and seriously. Incidentally, when I visited Greenock prison last Saturday, I was deeply impressed by the architectural design of the new hall. The prisoners who are housed in the new hall, which is to be called Chriswell after an old farm near Inverkip—which will be part of my constituency if I am lucky enough to be re-elected—were very pleased with their new surroundings.
One prisoner in the new hall, a man who has been in prison for many years, pleaded with me to help him secure his early release. He asked me to make representations to "that politician who runs our prisons", and said that he thought his name was Mr. Willie Hamilton. I said that


I thought he was confusing my old friend, that staunch republican, with the Minister. I know that there are those who would have liked to see Willie Hamilton put behind bars for some of his views.
I now turn to what I consider to be equally serious issues concerning PADs—persons awaiting deportation. As the chief inspector pointed out, the average number of such persons has risen from 11 to 16. On Saturday, when I was in the prison, there were 14 such persons, and I spoke to five of them. They are men guilty only of breaching immigration rules. They are not criminals, and they should not be in a prison.
Their detention at Gateside presents formidable and often distressing problems for them and serious difficulties for members of the prison staff. There are difficulties in terms of language, culture, religion and diet. Three Indians, who were decent and polite individuals, complained to me that they had not tasted a decent curry for a long time. I said that there was nothing I could do about that. More seriously, there are formidable problems for such persons.
What training is given to the staff at Greenock and Aberdeen, where, I believe, a few such persons are detained?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): indicated assent.

Dr. Godman: I see the Minister nodding.
What training is given to the staff to equip them to deal with such detainees? Are they given special training?
I have another serious question for the Minister. Does the Scottish Prison Service bill the Home Office immigration and nationality department for the detention of such persons in our prisons in Scotland? If not, why not? The immigration and nationality department has the responsibility for detaining those people.
I was able to speak to the detainees out of earshot of the governor and the prison officers in A hall in the prison. They told me that they had no complaints against the staff, which was gratifying for me to hear as the local Member of Parliament, but they were not so complimentary about certain prisoners. There is an Albanian in Greenock prison at the moment, and I was unable to speak to him as he knows no English. What assistance is given to prisons to allow such persons to be given an understanding of their rights, their privileges, prison regulations and the prison regime? That is an important question in terms of language difficulties.
I remind the Minister that, in a letter written on 14 September 1994 to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said of detainees south of the border:
It is true that some detainees are detained in prisons, generally because they require greater levels of security and control than can be provided in immigration detention centres. In such cases they are generally accommodated with unconvicted prisoners and accorded the same privileges.
That is not the case at Greenock.
Detainees are accommodated alongside untried prisoners, but they mix with prisoners who have been convicted in the sheriff court and the High Court. The fact

that they mix with criminals of all kinds is simply not good enough. These people have broken immigration rules, but they have done nothing else. They are not criminals, and they deserve to be treated much more decently.
What access is given to legal representatives? Are the prisons at Aberdeen, Greenock, Perth and elsewhere as open in terms of access to legal representatives as those south of the border? In other words, is there access at weekends, and if not, why not?
In January, I asked the Home Office a question about the building of a holding centre at Glasgow airport. I was told:
There have been no discussions with the British Airports Authority about building a holding centre at Glasgow airport."—[Official Report, 30 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 706.]
When I spoke to Mr. Vernon Murphy, the managing director of the British Airports Authority in Scotland, he told me that he could see no difficulties in finding a site for such a centre at Glasgow airport. In a letter to the Minister two weeks ago, I argued for the construction of such a centre. Doubtless the Minister will respond to that letter in his reply.
I remind the Minister of the observations of Chief Inspector Fairweather in paragraph 6.38 of the report:
In our view, PADs are inappropriately located in a complex Hall housing a difficult and disparate population within an already overcrowded local prison.
I know that the prison is not as overcrowded as it was in November because of the opening of the new hall, but it is still overcrowded.
The report continues:
On the one hand these men, who are a generally conforming group, are subjected to a criminal subculture in which violence and drug abuse are common and from whom they can expect racial taunts and intimidation … We are of the opinion that although the Prison Service is doing its best, this group should properly be located in secure hostel or other accommodation which is dedicated to the containment of this special category.
I hope that the Minister, Mr. Frizell, and others in the Scottish Prison Service will take on board the observations of Chief Inspector Fairweather.
Greenock prison, even though it is still overcrowded, is well run. That view is shared by members of the visitors committee, most of whom I know personally, and some of whom the Minister knows. The problems discussed in the report and his recommendations must be tackled comprehensively and expeditiously. I offer my best wishes to Governor Gunn, who is forsaking the green pastures of Greenock for Polmont. I regret his passing, but I am pleased that he is being promoted. I would be grateful to the Minister for answers to my questions.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I am glad to respond to the hon. Memer for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), and glad that he has changed his views about women not being allowed to operate as deckhands to a more politically correct attitude. The Scottish Office also has a good record. The Scottish Prison Service follows an equal opportunities policy, and women recruits are warmly welcomed. There is an increasing number of women in the service, including management posts. Recruitment and promotion are, of course, on merit.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to speak about the work of Greenock prison. I agree that it is a good and well-run prison. I know that he has, for many years, taken a positive interest in its work and in helping to maintain good relations between it and the local community.
The hon. Gentleman raised four issues: persons awaiting deportation, overcrowding, suicides, and the chief inspector's report.
He expressed concern about the use of the prison for the detention of persons awaiting deportation. The Prison Service in Scotland provides a service on behalf of the immigration service to hold in secure custody persons detained under the Immigration Acts. Such people are foreign nationals detected as illegal entrants or overstayers. They are normally held at Greenock, Edinburgh or Aberdeen prison until their deportation orders are served or their cases are otherwise settled. The advantage of Greenock is its close proximity to Glasgow airport.
The average number of persons held in Scottish prisons awaiting deportation is around 12, but it varies from month to month. The maximum number recorded in Greenock prison was 33 in August 1995.
In his recent report on Greenock prison, the chief inspector recommended that the Scottish Prison Service should enter into a dialogue with the immigration service with a view to identifying suitable alternative accommodation for all persons awaiting deportation. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland indicated in his response to that report, the governor has maintained an informal dialogue with immigration service officials about the use made of Greenock to hold persons awaiting deportation.
However, although the persons awaiting deportation add to the pressure on the establishment, their numbers may not be so great as to make provision of a separate purpose-built detention centre a practical proposition. None the less, in the light of the chief inspector's concern, the Scottish Prison Service is discussing that matter further with the immigration service, and the director of custody will meet the director of the immigration service on 10 April. Any separate purpose-built facility would be the responsibility of the immigration service.
As the chief inspector acknowledged, the staff at Greenock prison will continue to manage the needs of those awaiting deportation with sensitivity and humanity. Regular visits are made by representatives of Strathclyde community relations council to advise on any religious, social or dietary needs of persons awaiting deportation. The council also arranges for interpreters, as required. The prison staff organise fortnightly discussions with persons awaiting deportation to resolve any problems.
Every six weeks, those detained are able to meet representatives from the local ethnic minority communities socially in the prison chapel. Videos and reading material are provided, and they are offered frequent access to facilities such as the gymnasium. The prison's ethnic minorities liaison officer monitors their situation. Any concerns are relayed immediately to the immigration service, and the few instances of racial harassment that arise are dealt with firmly.
The hon. Member asked about staff training. There is, of course, close liaison with Strathclyde community relations council. The present ethnic minorities liaison

officer has spent several days training with that council, which provides prison staff with advice on the sensitive handling of persons awaiting deportation.
As for overcrowding and the overall regime at Greenock, unfortunately the prison has had to cope with high prisoner numbers, often 30 per cent. above its previous design capacity of 172, for some time. That is why we have built an additional accommodation block there.
Chrisswell house, which consists of 60 cells on two galleries, cost £2.2 million, and opened last month. It is being used to house long-term, low-risk prisoners preparing for liberation. That will reduce overcrowding, and allow single-cell occupancy in Darroch hall, where long-term prisoners are also housed. At 15 March, Greenock was holding 236 prisoners, as against the enlarged design capacity of 232.
As for the rest of the prison estate, every effort is being made to minimise overcrowding by making the best use of accommodation and by bringing refurbished accommodation on stream as quickly as possible. The changes in the use of Castle Huntly, from housing young offenders to housing adults, and in that of Cornton Vale, so that it will take some young male offenders in segregated accommodation, are enabling the Scottish Prison Service to reduce overcrowding elsewhere in the system. That reduces the pressure on the local prisons at Edinburgh and Barlinnie.
The SPS is also working on obtaining a new prison under the private finance initiative. That prison will operate under the prison rules, and to a specified level of service. It will have about 500 places, built to category B standard to allow for future flexibility.
Because of its location, and in order to make the best use of the particular facilities there, Greenock prison holds a range of prisoners. It is a local prison serving the courts in the west of Scotland, principally those of Greenock, Paisley and Dumbarton. It also provides an enhanced regime for long-term prisoners nearing the end of their sentence—a "top end" facility for prisoners who are preparing for release and reintegration back into society.
I shall now talk about the distressing subject of suicides, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. One suicide in the Scottish prisons is one too many, but it has proved difficult to ascertain why there has been an increase in the number of suicides. Each confirmed death by suicide has been extensively examined by management at the prison, by the Prison Service suicide risk management executive steering group, by the medical adviser to the service and by fatal accident inquiries. No common theme or pattern has emerged, and the medical adviser can see no reason for the increase in the number of suicides.
The fact that rare events sometimes cluster, and that the rate of suicide among young males in Scotland as a whole has increased, is of little comfort. The Prison Service has rightly commissioned Dr. Kevin Power and Dr. Joseph McElroy of the department of psychology at the university of Stirling to undertake the comprehensive evaluation of the suicide prevention strategy.
In addition, Professor Gunn of the institute of psychiatry is to provide authoritative independent assessment of the ways in which the Prison Service seeks to prevent suicide, with a view to ascertaining what steps could be considered in addition to action taken. Both the


reports are expected in the near future. Professor Gunn's report is certainly coming within the next few weeks, and we will consider it very carefully. We will await his advice, and we will consider how his analysis might best be disseminated.
At Greenock, a room has been set aside for vulnerable prisoners on the bottom flat of A hall, which is linked to the staff office and can be monitored constantly. Recent action across the service includes a new emphasis on providing care facilities that allow prisoners on strict suicide supervision greater personal interaction, a new design of supervision cell, new types of clothing and bedding for at-risk prisoners, and a rolling programme of training for prison nursing staff.
The hon. Member asked why the chief inspector is a lay appointment. It is, of course, important that the chief inspector brings a completely independent view to the inspection of the service. It is in line with the citizens charter, therefore, that he should be a lay person. Naturally, he is supported by a deputy chief inspector and an inspector, who are governors seconded from the Scottish Prison Service. The need to balance the competing demands of the different regimes at Greenock has been fully addressed in the context of the governor's strategic plan for 1996–97.
The deficiencies in the regime, to which the chief inspector referred, reflect the fact that Greenock is in a transition stage. As it develops a regime profile, it will be better able to assist and challenge prisoners to address their offending behaviour under the sentence planning scheme. There are now sufficient resources available—both by reallocation of existing resources and by resource injections through the strategic planning process—to take account of the opening of the new accommodation block.
Progress is being made in Greenock in the delivery of programmes aimed at reducing reoffending. Work is in hand to develop a comprehensive model for assessing prisoners' needs for counselling and training, and to

identify welfare problems. There has been a substantial investment in training prison staff to deliver programmes aimed at addressing offending behaviour, and the prison aims to achieve the investors in people standards.
The existing regime includes a range of programmes to address offending behaviour. There are group sessions on violence and anger management, and on drug and alcohol awareness. Inverclyde Alcohol Services assists in providing the alcohol counselling service. The education unit runs a course on listening and counselling skills, and has prepared a life skills and pre-release course. A cognitive skills training programme has been introduced to help prisoners to develop appropriate problem solving and coping strategies to break the cycle of persistent reoffending.
The cognitive skills programme was originally developed in the Canadian correctional service, and is based on extensive research there, which showed that many offenders have particular difficulties in solving problems, in thinking through the consequences of their actions, in understanding the needs of others, and in relating effectively to other people. I am glad that Greenock is playing a pioneering role in this connection. The Scottish Prison Service programme, which is being introduced throughout the service, consists of nine modules delivered over 35 two-hour sessions.
Research on the effectiveness of the cognitive skills programme in Canada showed an 11 per cent. reduction in overall reoffending among federal offenders serving two years and over. The programme will help prisoners to rationalise problems and to make better decisions, which should have a significant impact on how they conduct themselves when they return to society.
I could go on for a long time in this regard, but I shall conclude by telling the hon. Member that he is right to praise Greenock prison, and that he has addressed some important issues tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.